Zimbabwe

Lord Blaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What further steps they propose to take in connection with the situation in Zimbabwe.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, our aim remains a return to democratic governance, prosperity and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. We are working closely with the international community to sustain pressure on Mugabe's regime by maintaining dialogue with countries in southern Africa, the Commonwealth in general, our EU partners and the United States. The immediate priority is to ensure that 5.5 million economically vulnerable Zimbabweans do not starve between now and the next harvest in April. The Department for International Development will provide almost £20 million for emergency feeding programmes this year.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, while I agree with the objectives stated by the noble Baroness, would it not be helpful if more pressure were applied to the Mugabe regime? At the European Council on 26 January, will the Government propose that sanctions should be extended to the spouses and families of Mr Mugabe's cronies and to the business people who bankroll him? As a separate matter, will they also propose that Mr Mugabe be stripped of his knighthood, as was the case with President Ceaucescu?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord says that we should exert more pressure. I can tell him that we will be exerting a great deal of pressure at the EU Foreign Ministers' meeting later this month. We will do our best to persuade them to apply the maximum sanctions that we can negotiate within the EU. The noble Lord will remember that that matter did not exactly have a smooth passage last year, but we shall certainly return to the fray this year.
	As for Mr Mugabe's knighthood, I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord's point. However, we have done our best to avoid making the argument a personal one between Mr Mugabe and the United Kingdom. Mr Mugabe never misses an opportunity to point to the actions of the United Kingdom as being those of a colonial power directed against him. We want to avoid that, although I am bound to tell the noble Lord that, I too, find it difficult to take that Mr Mugabe continues to hold a knighthood.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, can the Minister give an update on the pledges given by President Thabo Mbeki to our Prime Minister last year that there would be a government of national unity in place by June this year? Furthermore, given the appalling state of businesses and banks in Zimbabwe, surely now is the time for international businesses with interests in that country to take a more assertive political stance against President Mugabe.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on the position announced by Mr Mbeki last year, he was in Harare shortly before Christmas discussing the position with both Mr Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai and said that he hoped that the discussions between the two parties in Zimbabwe would continue. To that, I would say, "We shall see". So far, the augurs have not been good.
	As for further pressure from international bodies, again, I agree that if we are able to exert more pressure, it is best done through such international organisations and banks. It is our business to do everything that we can to persuade the movers in the international community, whether political or commercial, closely to consider what is happening in Zimbabwe and to take some good decisions about investment.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, will my noble friend comment on the HIV/AIDS situation in Zimbabwe? There have been terrible problems with the regime's attitude towards the disease. Has that attitude changed and what are the British Government doing to enable people to get help with HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the HIV/AIDS situation is indeed grave. Almost one-quarter of all Zimbabweans aged between 15 and 49 are infected with HIV/AIDS. That is a truly devastating figure. We cannot give any accurate information about the availability of drugs to deal with the problem. The fact that 3,200 people are dying every single week from HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe is a truly appalling statistic.
	We know that some forms of aid have been used by the Mugabe regime to exert pressure for political purposes. We will continue to monitor the situation as best we can in the current circumstances, but if there is any evidence of the anti-viral drugs used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS being withheld from certain parts of the Zimbabwean community, the Government—in particular, my colleagues in the DfID—would be grateful to hear it.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that despite the egregious violations of human rights in Zimbabwe over many years, the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights has been unable to send a single special representative to monitor the situation there? Does she not think that measures should be taken to collect all the information available—perhaps by the Commonwealth Human Rights Unit—and lay the facts before the commission when it meets in Geneva in April?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that we should do everything that we can to get together information on the true position in Zimbabwe and to bring it to the attention of countries around the world. The noble Lord will know that it is not straightforward to get information on Zimbabwe. Not to put too fine a point upon it, it has not been terribly easy to persuade some of our partners in the United Nations that the appropriate measures should be taken against Zimbabwe in the form of condemnatory resolutions. As I said in my previous answers, I agree that we should consider very closely anything that can be done to internationalise the position so that we are not put in the position that Mr Mugabe desperately wants us to be in—that of being the lead nation, making this a black-versus-white argument, which it emphatically is not.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, mentioned the financial crisis that has overtaken Zimbabwe. Now that inflation is between 600 and 1,000 per cent, interest rates are 450 per cent, a number of banks cannot even honour cheques issued, and the World Food Programme has announced that it will have to halve its supply of food aid because Zimbabwe gave it misleading information at the start, what are the next steps that we will take, not merely against Zimbabwe, but to rescue the people of Zimbabwe? As Colin Powell said last summer, we could do with vigorous international action. Could that include a constructive UN resolution now, proposed by the countries that really want to see Zimbabweans saved from the murderous regime under which they live?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right; the economic situation in Zimbabwe is absolutely desperate. I asked for the inflation figure; I understand that the most recent figure is some 620 per cent. Unemployment stands at between 70 and 80 per cent—in the country that was the breadbasket of southern Africa. Mr Mugabe has inflicted on his country a truly appalling position.
	As regards what can be done, I said in my Answer that the United Kingdom is providing more money for emergency feeding programmes this year. In the past three years we have provided more than £60 million. The noble Lord asks what can be done next. We look to the international community in the way that I indicated; we look to pressure to be brought through Commonwealth countries that possibly have more influence than we do on the Zimbabweans. I look, for example, to the remarks of Archbishop Tutu of South Africa and to the United States. We look to exert pressure however we can through the EU, for which there will be another opportunity at the end of this month. We also look to individuals in taking their decisions about how they deal with the regime; but we say to them: please make sure that the action taken hurts the regime and not the individual Zimbabwean.

Cannabis and Mental Health

Lord Waddington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will review their policy on cannabis in the light of new evidence suggesting that the use of cannabis increases the likelihood of the onset of psychosis.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government's decision to seek to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug was taken following advice received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). The evidence to which the noble Lord refers was collated by Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry, who does not oppose reclassification. Much of it was considered by the ACMD when it drew up its report. That evidence does not constitute grounds for review of our policy on cannabis.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but does she not agree that a good Secretary of State should be prepared to review a policy, not persist with it pig-headedly, when it becomes apparent that the advice on which he has relied is fundamentally flawed? Is it not madness to press ahead with downgrading cannabis to a class C drug, putting it in the same category as tranquillisers and sending out a message that it is relatively harmless, when in recent years the evidence has steadily mounted that there is a link between cannabis use and mental illness? As the Minister has said, we now have Professor Murray saying that cannabis use is the leading problem faced by the country's mental health services; that inner-city psychiatric services are nearly at crisis point, with up to 80 per cent of all psychotic cases reporting a history of cannabis use; and that there is now proof that people who use cannabis in their teens are up to seven times more likely to develop psychosis, delusional episodes or manic depression. I beg the Government to think again.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree absolutely that a good Secretary of State would take the action that the noble Lord has highlighted when it becomes clear that advice is absolutely fundamentally flawed. However, that is not the case. The advice that was given by the advisory council took into account research similar to that to which the noble Lord referred.
	We have considered the issue. On the previous occasion, I said that the Government would continue to keep the issue under review, as would the advisory council. Professor Murray's report is consistent with the indications that had already been considered by the advisory council when it came to its view on classifications. As I said in my Answer, Professor Murray does not disagree with the reclassification of cannabis.

Lord Winston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the House's Select Committee on Science and Technology examined in detail the evidence for cannabis causing harm and has continued to keep that matter under surveillance? The evidence that cannabis causes psychosis or mental illness is very far from clear. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said that,
	"there is little evidence that cannabis use can precipitate schizophrenia or other mental illness in those not already predisposed to it".

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct.

Lord McNally: My Lords, has the Minister seen three headlines from last week's press? One said:
	" 'Epidemic' of mental illness warning".
	Another said:
	"Why I'd rather be stoned than drunk".
	A third said, "Cannabis laws in shambles". Does the Minister agree that some clear messages must be sent with reclassification? There must now be a real emphasis on prosecuting and bringing to justice the peddlers of hard drugs. Will the police be given the resources to do that?
	Is the Minister sure that the Government have the kind of rolling advice that is needed, as all of us move on to thin ice in drugs law? Is the advisory council the right body to carry on the work, or should a statutory standing commission be set up to take account of new developments and new advice?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked several questions. In accordance with practice, I shall answer two. We agree about the need to have clear messages. We are spending over £1 million on a campaign to make sure that people understand the new law and that schoolchildren and others who may be directly affected get the information that they need to make a proper, informed decision. I also agree with the noble Lord that the concentration should be on those who purvey such pernicious drugs, to the detriment of us all.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister recall our debate on 12 November, in which several of us raised a concern that Professor Murray and others had sought a meeting with the Home Secretary and that that meeting had been declined? Will she confirm that, of the 34 members of the advisory council, not one comes from an organisation opposed to the changes that she outlined to the House that night? On that same council, there are 13 representatives of groups that are in favour of change.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the advisory council is made up of 20 members, chosen because of their expertise and independence of view. I know that the noble Lord will appreciate the high quality of the membership. That membership is clearly set out.
	We do not accept that there has, in any way, been a lack of balance. Proper consideration has been given to Professor Murray's work. It has been taken into account, in order to make sure that what the Government do is properly balanced and right.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the reclassification of cannabis will result in increased use of cannabis, as happened recently in Lambeth, where it has already been effectively declassified? That may lead to growing health problems in the future.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we do not believe that it will lead to an increase in the use of cannabis. The European Monitoring Centre report does not show that cannabis use in the United Kingdom is increasing.
	Of course, we will we keep the issues under careful scrutiny. We need to monitor the issue to make sure that the assumptions that we make now are correct.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the Minister accept that choosing to reclassify cannabis at this time will inevitably send out a message that its use is harmless? Does she accept, as a former practising barrister, that many of the people addicted to hard drugs who are involved in serious cases started by using cannabis before moving to harder drugs?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we must base our judgments on the data that we have. As a good forensic lawyer, the noble Lord will know that that is the best way to approach things. The evidence does not, at the moment, demonstrate that to be so. The link between using cannabis and moving on to class A drugs has not been established with the clarity that the noble Lord suggests.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, once cannabis is reclassified at the end of the month, will the Government consider again the possibility of permitting the private cultivation of cannabis for personal use? That would cut out the middleman and reduce the volume of illegal trade.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, whatever the rights and wrongs of the psychiatric evidence, are the Government satisfied that police officers who catch people—particularly young people—using cannabis have the equipment to ensure that they obtain the right health advice about the possible psychiatric and psychotropic effects of cannabis misuse?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am confident that the guidance given to police is robust. Noble Lords will also know that we are developing some very responsive procedures and protocols for dealing with young people who are or may become addicted. So far, I am glad to say, those policies appear to be bearing fruit, and we are doing better than, perhaps, many thought we would be. But there is a long way to go.

Transport Policing and Security

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who is responsible for the provision and funding of transport policing and security.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the British Transport Police, funded by the rail industry, is responsible for policing the national railways and London Underground. With some exceptions, police authorities are funded centrally and by council tax precepts and are responsible for policing generally.
	The Department for Transport is responsible for aviation, maritime, Channel Tunnel and rail security. Industry must implement our requirements. It bears the operating costs, passing them on to its customers as it sees fit.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that interesting Answer. In response to a Question last week, he said that the new sky marshals would be funded by government. He has just said that the British Transport Police is funded by the industry. Does he not see it as inequitable that the rail industry must pay for its own policing—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—although rail freight does not get much policing, whereas, for all other forms of transport, it is effectively mostly paid for by central government? Would not the £132 million a year that the rail industry pays be useful in these times of financial difficulty for the railways?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall correct my noble friend, preparatory to accepting a correction from him. First, other modes of transport pay their security costs. Ports and airports, if designated, must meet the costs of security; it is not just the rail industry.
	My mistake, which my noble friend highlighted, was that, in trying to stress the extent to which sky marshals would be trained police officers introduced by government at the insistence of the airlines, I emphasised that the training of such officers was a national impost. I omitted to say that the seats that they will occupy will be provided by the airlines, so, in that respect as well, the industry is paying some proportion of the costs.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the chief executive of British Airways, Rod Eddington, revealed that on a recent British Airways flight one passenger remarked to his neighbour, "We have been planning this for six months, let's do it"? That exchange was overheard by a rather nervous, fellow passenger in the next seat, who alerted the crew. As a result, two Tornado fighter jets were scrambled to Heathrow Airport. It was a false alarm. The conversation was between a father and son discussing an imminent family reunion with a great aunt. If armed sky marshals had been aboard the flight, would a response using force have been justified? Would the newly agreed protocols, if they had been agreed, allow such a use of force?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the anecdote, but I hope that we always err on the side of excessive security rather than take risks with the lives of passengers. Of course, the noble Lord has highlighted how extremely difficult security is with regard to aircraft. Judgments have to be employed, and have to be employed at very short notice. I hope that what the noble Lord has just illustrated is the most extreme case in which a misjudgment was made.

Fish Farming

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether background marine pollution poses a threat to United Kingdom fish farming in general, and to Scottish salmon farming in particular.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have no reason to believe that the background levels of pollution pose a threat to the future of salmon farming or fish farming generally. In response to media coverage on contaminant levels in farmed salmon, the Food Standards Agency has advised that these levels are acceptable and pose no threat to human health when fish are eaten as part of a balanced diet.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that this is not a new problem? Three to four years ago, Miriam Jacobs of the toxicology unit at Surrey University pointed out to MAFF the levels of organo-chlorides, dioxins and a range of other chemicals that were to be found in farmed fish. In the intervening years, what work has been done by Defra to identify whether the levels have been caused by general pollution in the water around our seas caused by, for example, run-off from the land, whether the levels have been caused by pollutants in the feed that salmon are being fed—in other words, in other wild fish that perhaps come from more polluted waters—or whether they have been caused by the treatment of the cages in which the fish are kept?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not think that there has been definitive research on the levels since the studies to which the noble Baroness referred. But measurement in the fish is continuously being carried out. Clearly, farmed fish, almost by definition, are likely to have a higher level of pollutants than those at sea, particularly in the further oceans. Effectively, that is what the US study covered by the media found. As I say, that is not surprising.
	The issue is whether that level is, in any sense, a threat to human health in normal circumstances, to which the FSA has given the very clear answer, "no". In terms of whether it comes in the ground water running off, in the water that is used, in the sediment or in the food, a good deal of it probably did come in run-off water. Some of the pesticides found a few years ago have subsequently been banned. Therefore, if anything, there should be a lower level arising from man-made problems on inland and coastal farms.

Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this matter has caused grave concern in Scotland where many people are employed in fish farming? Has he noticed that the science on which the challenge was based this weekend has been answered by the Food Standards Agency? It is the Food Standards Agency to which we should address ourselves when faced with food scares. But the fact remains that Scotland produces quality food in every sector.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, at the risk of alienating English farmers, certainly I accept that Scottish food is of high quality and that it is safe. In relation to salmon farming, clearly the FSA's judgment is that the level comes nowhere near any threat to human health. But it is not just the FSA standard; it is also the EU standard, the WHO standard and, indeed, given that it was American research, it is also the FDA standard in the United States, which is well above any levels detected by this latest research. Indeed, the information is not new; it is the same information that has been available to those authorities over some time.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, is not the matter a little more serious than the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite is giving the appearance of accepting? Is he aware that attempts to farm cod are being started now on the Shetland Islands? If that works, it could be a very important development for Scottish fishing, but even more for producing cod at a time when the shortage of North Sea cod becomes more serious, with the likelihood that North Sea fishing for cod might have to be stopped altogether. Against that, the growth of farmed cod is very important. The fear that there is something wrong with farmed fish is very prevalent. Can the Minister therefore make absolutely certain that the stories about Scottish farmed cod are put to rest so that other parts of the Scottish fishing industry can prosper?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I certainly think that the way in which some of the media treated these reports was erroneous and of great detriment to the Scottish farmed fish industry. Fish farming of all sorts, including, potentially, for cod, is an important part of the future. That is why we, and the EU, have a positive approach to the development of aquaculture in Europe, in part to offset the problem of declining stocks in the ocean. However, it is not possible to say that there is an equivalent level of pollutants in farmed fish as against wild sea fish. As I say, that is not surprising. Nevertheless, it is at a level which nowhere near threatens human health.

Lord Winston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the paper published on 9 January in Science, on which this evidence is based, has some very curious findings? For example, the next highest area of contamination is the Faroe Islands, where the levels are very similar to those in farmed fish in Scotland but where the pollution position is obviously quite different. Further investigation is therefore needed before we jump to too many conclusions about the unsafeness of Scottish salmon.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is right. It indicates that there is some pollution at sea as well, particularly off the coasts of Europe. It is important that we continue to monitor the situation, but there is no reason why we, or the other authorities internationally, should draw attention to salmon as being a threat to human health. It is not.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the case that the Scottish salmon industry has conducted a big clean-up of what it was doing? It used to use nasty organophosphates, which noble Lords know I do not like very much. I gather that at one stage it was using the avermectin group to kill sea lice on salmon. It was found that there were problems with flora and fauna on the sea bottom. Has the industry now stopped using those chemicals? Has there been any recovery of the sea bottom around fish farms?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I confirm that a number of chemicals are no longer used, both in terms of general use that affected the organophosphates and in terms of damaging chemicals that were previously used in fish farming, such as malachite green and certain other chemicals that have been banned. I need to check whether we have a complete block on the chemicals to which she referred. Certainly, there has been a substantial clean-up. I shall write to the noble Countess on the particulars.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that fish farming can develop and spread pollution, particularly if the fish are confined in too small a space? For example, parasites, such as sea lice, can appear and multiply.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. That is why the development of aquaculture needs to observe very effective standards of control, of checking and of what we bring into the farmed area. But it is also true that sea lice has been a particular problem and, on occasion, has spread into the wild fish population. That is something that the industry itself is addressing.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Scottish fish farming industry maintains that the fishmeal it uses comes from the same sources as that used in North America and Chile? Should the Government be looking at testing fishmeal to ensure that those chemicals are not accumulating through that source? Considering that the study conducted by the US universities found that six picogrammes of dioxin per gramme of salmon were found in the samples that they had, how much salmon would an average person have to eat in one sitting before the Food Standards Agency would consider that a dangerous level had been reached?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the answer to the second question must be, "A lot, and far more than the noble Duke's appetite!". On the first part of his question, I shall check on the tests on feed but it seems unlikely that feed is the source of this pollution. However, we have to look at all possibilities.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in answering the Question, the Minister said he did not think that this was a threat to the industry. Does he remember the egg situation where egg farmers nearly went bankrupt when that scare led to eggs not being sold? Has he not read in newspapers how salmon cannot even be given away at the moment in some supermarkets? Is he not afraid that this might be a similar situation?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the unhappy episode of eggs and salmonella, which had far more basis in fact than this scare, was given extra legs by the way in which the then government handled the situation. The FSA and this Government are making it clear that this is not a valid food scare and that we are keeping the situation under constant monitoring. Nothing that has been found in this study should raise the kind of anxieties that have been blazoned across some of the less responsible media in recent days. I recognise that if this scare did get out of hand there would be a serious problem. However, all the authorities acting together to indicate that this is not a serious health threat will help to damp down that scare.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Howe of Idlicote and the Lord St John of Bletso set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Liaison: Select Committee Report

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	It may be helpful if I start with a word on procedure. Once I have sat down, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will move his amendment. The debate on the report and on both the amendments will then take place as usual. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, speaks early in the debate. At the end of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will decide what to do with his amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, will then have the opportunity to move her amendment if she so wishes and to do so without further debate. The report as a whole, whether amended or not, will then be decided upon.
	The report is short and, I hope, clear. It relates to two matters: the appointment of an ad hoc Select Committee and the question of additional resources for the Economic Affairs Committee to enable it to scrutinise the Finance Bill again this year.
	I turn first to the appointment of an ad hoc Select Committee. Three requests for the establishments of new committees were considered. In each case the proponents attended the meeting and addressed the Liaison Committee briefly on the merits of their proposals. It was the view of the committee, by an overwhelming majority, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, reintroduced this Session as the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. The committee did not recommend the appointment of committees on the implications of withdrawal from the European Union or on communications. The reasons for making this choice are set out in the report.
	In view of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, it might be helpful if I were to say a few words as to why I hope the advice of the Liaison Committee will be accepted. First, the House has delegated to the Liaison Committee the function of allocating resources for Select Committee work and for considering requests for ad hoc Select Committees. As some noble Lords will recall, the Liaison Committee was established on the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in 1992. The intention was to bring rationality to a process which until then had been somewhat haphazard.
	The composition of the committee is broadly based and includes six Back-Bench Members as well as the party leaders and the Convenor. The House normally accept the committee's advice and I hope that it will do so on this occasion. I suggest that such advice should be set aside only where circumstances have changed or if there is some overriding political imperative, not simply because the advice has proved unwelcome to some.
	Secondly, we have long operated on the presumption that the House should provide resources for one ad hoc Select Committee at any one time. This was certainly the presumption of the Jellicoe committee. If the House were to decide to the contrary to our advice that more than one ad hoc Select Committee be set up, the Liaison Committee would have to consider the resource implications. The resource implications of a committee on the costs and benefits of the United Kingdom's continued membership of the EU, for example, would be immense if the work were to be done properly. If two ad hoc Select Committees were to be agreed to, it is likely that one of those committees would be delayed until the necessary resources could be found.
	Thirdly, I should point out to your Lordships that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, was for a committee on the implications of withdrawal from the EU, rather than on the implications of membership as proposed in his amendment today. The two are by no means the same and in the circumstances perhaps the noble Lord may feel that he should not press it now, but return to the Liaison Committee in due course.
	Lastly, I invite your Lordships to consider the implications for Members of the House, and for their time, if more committees are appointed. I have a clear impression, as Chairman of the Committee of Selection, that the demands on Members' time are already very heavy. Currently, 126 Members sit on our sessional investigative Select Committees. A further nine sit on the Joint Committee on the gambling Bill. More pre-legislative committees are promised. I do not include here the membership of our three Select Committees on delegated legislation. Peer resource is an important factor which the Liaison Committee bears in mind during its deliberations.
	I turn now to our recommendation that a Clerk and other resources be provided to enable the Economic Affairs Committee to set up a sub-committee on the Finance Bill again this year. No such additional resources were provided when the sub-committee was first established in the previous Session. I am sure that the House would agree that when we agree to establish the new committees, we must also will the means.

Moved, That the 3rd Report from the Select Committee, Session 2002–03, be agreed to. (HL Paper 183, Session 2002–03).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	Following is the report referred to:
	10 November 2003
	By the Select Committee appointed to advise the House on the resources required for Select Committee work and to allocate resources between Select Committees; to review the Select Committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees.
	ORDERED TO REPORT
	Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill
	1. The committee has considered a proposal put forward by Lord Joffe that his Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill [HL] be committed to a Select Committee. A paper from Lord Joffe was considered by the committee and is printed at Appendix 1. The committee also heard Lord Joffe and Baroness Jay of Paddington in support of his proposal.
	2. The purpose of Lord Joffe's Bill is to allow competent terminally ill patients to request assistance to die. It was the subject of a major debate in the House at Second Reading in June of this year. Almost 10 years have elapsed since the subject was considered by the Select Committee on Medical Ethics which reported in 1994. Since then other countries have introduced such legislation and public opinion in the United Kingdom has become more engaged in the issue. We consider that a Select Committee of this House would be well placed to consider major ethical issues of this kind and accordingly we recommend the appointment of an ad hoc Select Committee upon the Bill. The Bill will have to be reintroduced in the next Session, read a second time and committed to a Select Committee. Accordingly, we recommend that the committee begin its work after the Easter Recess.
	Implications of withdrawal from the European Union
	3. The committee has considered a proposal put forward by Lord Moran that a Select Committee be established to consider the implications for the United Kingdom of withdrawal from the European Union. A paper from Lord Moran was considered by the committee and is printed at Appendix 2. The committee also heard Lord Moran, Lord Weatherill and Viscount Falkland in support of this proposal.
	4. The purpose of such a committee would be to assess the constitutional and legal position, financial, trade and investment implications, effects on foreign relations and defence, and on agriculture and fisheries. The likely positive and negative effects of partial or total withdrawal would then be assessed. We consider that such a committee would not be timely in view of the current Inter-Governmental Conference on the draft Constitution for Europe. The establishment of such a committee is likely to be regarded as a negative intervention in the process by this House and we doubt whether it would be possible to isolate the committee's deliberations from wider political considerations. The resources required to conduct such an exercise would be disproportionate. We do not therefore recommend the establishment of a Select Committee on the implications of withdrawal from the European Union.
	Communications
	5. The committee has further considered a proposal put forward by Baroness Howe of Idlicote for a Select Committee on Communications. A memorandum from Lady Howe was considered once again by the committee and is printed at Appendix 3. The committee also heard Lady Howe in support of her proposal.
	6. When the committee first considered this proposal in February 2002 it then reported:
	"The proposed Select Committee would examine a subject on which the House has a great deal of expertise, and which cuts across government departmental boundaries. We believe that it would be a good subject for a House of Lords committee.
	"Baroness Howe's proposal is for a sessional rather than an ad hoc committee, to be appointed after the passage of the proposed Communications Bill, probably in late 2003. We would prefer the appointment of an ad hoc committee in the first instance, with a view to making it permanent if it were a success. We will return to the matter with a firm recommendation nearer the time."
	We do not consider this to have been a firm commitment and we have reviewed the proposal afresh.
	7. The remit proposed for such a committee, it was put to us, might include all broadcasting media, all aspects of the internet and telecommunications, newspaper and periodical publishing, film and video, advertising, and the ownership licensing control and management thereof. In addition to the reasons for setting up such a committee set out in Appendix 3, the forthcoming renewal of the BBC Charter, the consequences of the Hutton inquiry, and questions of foreign ownership were also cited in support.
	8. We do not consider that communications has a particular claim to become the subject of a dedicated Lords Select Committee. Furthermore, many aspects of the subject matter have been debated at length recently in the context of the House's consideration of the Communications Bill and in the pre-legislative scrutiny that preceded it. The remit envisaged is also very wide and is more suited to a sessional Select Committee. Upon further reflection we doubt whether the consideration in isolation of a single communications-related subject by an ad hoc Select Committee would be useful; and we are reluctant to recommend to the House that a sessional Select Committee be set up. Accordingly, we do not recommend the establishment of a Select Committee on communications, whether on an ad hoc or on a sessional basis.
	Additional Resources for the Economic Affairs Committee
	9. The committee has considered a request from Lord Peston for resources to enable the Sub-Committee of the Economic Affairs Committee on the Finance Bill to be set-up at the beginning of the new Session. A letter to the Chairman of Committees from Lord Peston is printed at Appendix 4.
	10. The Committee considers that Lord Peston's proposal represents a major departure from the original recommendation of the group on the working practices of the House chaired by the late Lord Williams of Mostyn and which was subsequently endorsed by the Procedure Committee and agreed to by the House itself. This recommendation was:
	"When the Finance Bill is introduced into the Commons and published, the committee should begin its work. The committee should report when the Finance Bill finishes its Commons Committee stage, but before Commons remaining stages. The timetable of the committee's work would therefore have to be arranged to fit the legislative timetable in the Commons." (Report from the Leader's group, 2001–02, HL Paper 111).
	11. While we appreciate the excellent work of the Sub-Committee on the Finance Bill earlier this session, we do not think that the arrangements agreed to by the House in 2002 should be departed from so soon, particularly in view of the sensitivities surrounding this initiative. The original proposal is due to be reviewed after two Sessions and we take the view that any case for a change in the current arrangement should be considered then. It follows that we do not agree to the first limb of Lord Peston's request.
	12. We recognise however that from March to late June or thereabout the Finance Bill Sub-Committee should be able to meet in parallel with the main Select Committee which will no doubt be engaged in an inquiry of its own. We therefore recommend that a Clerk and other resources be provided to allow this to happen.
	Pre-legislative Scrutiny
	13. The committee took note of the memorandum from the Leader of the House (Appendix 5).
	APPENDIX 1
	Memorandum from Lord Joffe
	Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill
	1. BACKGROUND TO THE REQUEST
	(a) The issue of assisted dying is of intense public interest upon which there are passionately opposing views within the House, amongst the public, health and legal professions and religious groupings.
	(b) The purpose of these briefing notes is not to rehearse the arguments for and against the Bill but rather to outline why I suggest that the House can only make an informed decision on the Bill if it has the benefit of the findings of a Select Committee.
	(c) The purpose of the Bill (as amended by the amendments of which I have given notice) is to prevent unbearable and unnecessary suffering by allowing competent terminally ill patients to request assistance to die. The Bill is accordingly very limited in its application. It does not apply to patients who are mentally incompetent nor to any patients who are terminally ill.
	(d) Opponents of the Bill, many of whom are concerned that assisted dying is contrary to their religious beliefs, mainly base their opposition upon concern that if assisted dying is decriminalised, the vulnerable members of society will be put at risk and trust between doctors and patients will be destroyed.
	(e) In drafting the Bill, it was recognised that there could be risks to vulnerable members of society and to prevent these risks, a range of safeguards was introduced. However, the Bill's opponents argue that these safeguards are inadequate.
	(f) Inevitably the views of the Bill's opponents on vulnerability and trust break-down have to be based on conjecture rather that upon fact.
	(g) As there is no available experience of assisted dying in the UK, it is natural to turn to the experience of other countries with similar health provision and similar standards of living which have actually implemented similar legislation. The Netherlands and Oregon qualify under all these headings with experience of patient assisted dying going back to the 1980s in the case of the Netherlands and 1997 in the case of Oregon.
	However, the supporters and opponents of the Bill have interpreted the experience of the Dutch and of Oregon very differently. The supporters are convinced that the Dutch and the Oregon experience provides positive support for the view that assisted dying does not place vulnerable people at risk and that there is no evidence of a break down in trust between doctors and patients. The Bill's opponents however argue that the Dutch and the Oregon experience illustrates the dangers to the vulnerable and to doctor/patient relationships.
	2. BASIS OF THE REQUEST
	The House would be immeasurably assisted in making an informed decision on the Bill if a Select Committee had taken evidence and considered the issues set out below:
	(a) The current experience of assisted dying in the Netherlands and Oregon and in particular, whether the vulnerable members of society have been put at risk and whether doctor/patient relationships have been adversely affected.
	(b) Whether palliative care can in all cases provide the care which will enable terminally ill patients to die with dignity and free of unnecessary suffering.
	(c) Whether recent polls that show 80 per cent percent of the public supporting assisted dying accurately reflect public opinion.
	(d) Whether the safeguards contained in the Bill to protect vulnerable members of society are adequate and if not, what further safeguards are necessary. The Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on 23 March 2003 was of the view that they were but the Bill's opponents are not persuaded.
	(e) The effect, if any, on resources for palliative care if the Bill became law.
	(f) The effect, if any, on health staff and the families of patients if the Bill became law.
	(g) The different views within the medical profession.
	3. CHANGES SINCE THE 1994 SELECT COMMITTEE
	The Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics which reported in 1994 recommended that the existing laws which make assisted dying illegal, should remain in force. That was ten years ago and much has changed since then including the following:
	(a) At the time there was no legislation similar to the Bill in any other country. Since then such legislation has been introduced in the Netherlands, Oregon and Belgium.
	(b) The views of the Select Committee were significantly influenced by what they were told about the Dutch system. In the light of developments in the Netherlands since then, I believe that a new Select Committee may form a different view particularly having regard to the facts that:
	the Royal Dutch Medical Association (of which the great majority of Dutch doctors are members), the Dutch Government and the overwhelming majority of the Dutch population strongly support the existing system
	the most recent Remmelink Report (an in depth series of reports commissioned by the Dutch Government) published earlier this year found no evidence of vulnerable people being put at risk nor any increases in voluntary euthanasia in the last five years.
	(c) Three of the surviving members of the previous Select Committee, Baroness Jay, Baroness Warnock and Baroness Flather now support this Bill. This is particularly significant as it demonstrates that a new Select Committee might well come to a different conclusion from the previous one.
	(d) The UK is now faced with the sorry spectacle of terminally ill patients dragging themselves in desperation to Zurich to be assisted to die.
	(e) Surveys in the UK amongst doctors have shown that a considerable number of doctors have felt compelled on grounds of compassion to agree to requests by their patients to assist them to die even though this is against the law. This sits uncomfortably in a democratic society where the rule of law should prevail.
	(f) Likewise wives who have openly broken the law on assisted suicide in order to assist their husbands to die in Switzerland, have understandably not been prosecuted and hopefully never will be.
	(g) The issue of assistance to die is now being looked at afresh by the Council of Europe which had previously expressed opposition to voluntary euthanasia and the French National Assembly has just agreed to set up a Parliamentary Commission to investigate issues relating to the end of life and formulate proposals for addressing these issues.
	(h) There is widespread support for the Bill amongst Peers on all sides of the House.
	(i) The terms of reference of the previous Select Committee were much wider than what is proposed and most of the other findings of that Committee are not being questioned.
	I respectfully submit that having regard to the above there is a powerful ease for a Select Committee, the findings of which would ensure that the House is able to make an informed decision on a Bill of significant importance.
	22 October 2003
	APPENDIX 2
	Memorandum from Lord Moran
	Proposal for a Select Committee to consider what might be the consequences of a withdrawal from the European Union
	The Head of Research Services in the House of Lords Library has confirmed that there appears to be no "authoritative and impartial report on what detachment from the European Union, in whole or in part, would mean for the United Kingdom". (Dr Victory's letter of 28 July 2003, attached.) It is the view of all those who have subscribed to this paper that a report on this is overdue and that a Select Committee of the House of Lords would be the most appropriate body to produce such a report.
	Members of the Liaison Committee will be aware that there is no provision for withdrawal in the existing EC Treaties. The draft treaty establishing a European Constitution does, however, include, in Article 1-59, a procedure for withdrawal from the Union. The text of this article is attached. A House of Commons research paper points out that Baroness Scotland, when a Foreign Office Minister, was asked why there was no provision in the EC Treaties for the free and unilateral withdrawal of member states, as there is for the treaties governing NATO and the WTO, and that she replied: "We see no need for the treaties governing membership of the Union to include a specific provision on unilateral withdrawal. It remains open to Parliament to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, the logical consequences of which would be to withdraw from the EU The terms of such a withdrawal would be for the Government to negotiate with the other Member States." (HL Deb, 11 January 2000, WA 96–7). This paper also records that Peter Hain told the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee in November 2002: "We saw it for the first time as we did other ideas in the skeleton draft constitution which he put forward and we are having a look at it. It may be a good idea that Member States which are so fed up with the European Union are able to remove themselves from it. We need to look at the detail, we need to know exactly what it means."
	Against this background our House on 27 June 2003 gave a Second Reading to the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill (HL), introduced by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, which would require the Government to set up an independent inquiry into the implications of withdrawal and to publish the result.
	During the debate Lord Moran, a Cross-Bencher, suggested that instead of seeking to get the Government to set up such an inquiry it might be better for this House to do so. He said:
	"It is of the greatest importance that we should have a thorough, impartial and well-informed study of what detachment from the Union, in whole or in part, would mean for this country. I do not suppose that this Government or any other that is in sight will do this, although of course they should. I believe that in those circumstances the best way forward might be for us to set up a Select Committee of this House to consider thoroughly and to report on the implications of acting in accordance with Part I, Article 59 of the draft constitution. Such a committee must command confidence and be as balanced and impartial as possible.
	"A good precedent was the Select Committee on the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference . . . three Eurosceptics were co-opted to this committee to balance the Europhiles—that is, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and myself as a Cross-Bencher. It worked well and we all signed the report which was, I think, a useful one.
	"Such a committee established now could hear evidence from experts in all the relevant fields. A report on these lines, calm, dispassionate and authoritative—would be an enormous help to all those considering our future relationship with Europe and would enable all of us to judge whether withdrawal would be a catastrophe or bring benefits to this country. I commend the idea to the House."
	This approach is welcomed by Lord Pearson (who has agreed that if such a Select Committee is set up it would not be necessary to proceed with the further stages of his Bill) and is supported by at least 51 Peers from different parts of the House whose names are attached. These include a former Prime Minister, a former Speaker of the House of Commons, several former senior Ministers and a number of Peers who are distinguished members of the business community.
	We think it essential that the Select Committee should command general confidence. It should not be overbalanced by known Europhiles or known Eurosceptics. It should be as dispassionate and authoritative as possible, and this would apply most of all to the Chairman. Its aim should be to shed light on the question, not to generate heat.
	In our view it should seek oral and written evidence from the most eminent available experts on all aspects of the question—the constitutional and legal position, financial, trade and investment implications, effects on our foreign relations and defence arrangements and on agriculture and fisheries. It should then set out the likely consequences of partial or total withdrawal, detailing the likely positive and negative effects.
	Peers supporting this request: Ampthill, Astor, Baker of Dorking, Beaumont of Whitley, fen, Black of Crossharbour, Blackwell, Campbell of Alloway, Cavendish of Furness, Chalfont, B. Cox, Cuckney, E. Erroll, V. Falkland, Feldman, Forsyth of Drumlean, Glenarthur, Griffiths of Fforestfach, Harris of High Cross, Inge, Kilclooney, Kimball, B. Knight of Collingtree, Laing of Dunphail, Liverpool, B. Mallalieu, Mancroft, C Mar, Monson, Moran, Mowbray and Stourton, E. Onslow, Palmer, Pearson of Rannoch, E. Peel, Pilkington, Renton, B. Saltoun of Abernethy, Sheppard of Didgemere, Shrewsbury & Waterford, Slim, Stevens of Ludgate, Stoddart of Swindon, B. Strange, Swinfen, Tebbit, Thatcher, Vinson, Waddington, Weatherill, DL, Willoughby de Broke.
	Enclosures: Letter from Isolde Victory to Lord Moran dated 28 July, 2003
	The Draft Treaty Establishing a European Constitution. Text of Article I-59
	* * * * * *
	Letter from Isolde Victory to Lord Moran dated 28 July, 2003
	Withdrawal from the EU
	I have been following up your query about whether there have been any authoritative and impartial reports on what detachment from the European Union, in whole or in part, would mean for the United Kingdom.
	I could not find any impartial consideration of this question of the kind you proposed for a select committee (HL Hansard, 27th June 2003, col. 561). There have been a small number of pamphlets and journal articles on the subject but none with the balance and range of a Select Committee report.
	I hope this is of assistance.
	The Draft Treaty Establishing a European Constitution. Text of Article I-59
	1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
	2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention; the European Council shall examine that notification. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council of Ministers, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
	3. The representative of the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in Council of Ministers or European Council discussions or decisions concerning it.
	4. The Constitution shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, decides to extend this period.
	5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to re-join, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article
	APPENDIX 3
	Letter and memorandum from Baroness Howe of Idlicote to the Chairman of Committees
	(previously published in the First Report of the Liaison Committee, 2001–02, HL Paper 84)
	PROPOSAL FOR THE HOUSE OF LORDS TO SET UP A COMMUNICATIONS SELECT COMMITTEE
	As you suggested when we spoke last week, I am enclosing details of a proposal, which I'd be most grateful if you could put before the members of the Liaison Committee, that the House of Lords should establish a Communications Select Committee. The idea has arisen in light of the Communication industry's ever widening remit, rapidly growing economic and cultural importance to the United Kingdom, and not least because of the considerable expertise and experience of the industry that exists in this House.
	As I explained, I wanted to test the amount of support that might exist amongst the 100 or so peers within that particular group before putting the suggestion formally to your Committee and, hopefully, for the idea to receive wider circulation and debate. So far I have had replies from over half of those to whom I wrote on 14th January, with the vast majority supporting both the proposal and its outlined remit. (I have, of course, been warned that resources for Select Committees are scarce, and that there may well be a queue of equally deserving suggestions ahead of this one!)
	Enclosed is both a copy of the letter I wrote to each Peer [not printed], and the paper setting out a reasoned case for the establishment of a Communications' Select Committee. Perhaps, however, I might mention that although the proposal is made now, I see the ideal time to set up such a Committee, if the idea should eventually be approved, might well be when the proposed Communications Bill (due to be debated in the Spring of this year) is finally on the statute book. Up to that point their Lordships' expertise will no doubt be fully occupied with that Bill's Pre-legislative Scrutiny Committee, and with the process of the legislation itself.
	I obviously hope the suggestion will gain your committee's approval, and if so, I should be most grateful for advice as to what further steps need to be taken.
	5 February 2002
	PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS SELECT COMMITTEE
	REASONS FOR ESTABLISHMENT
	1. Due to almost continuous technological innovation and change in the last 20 years, the whole business of communications is of increasing importance in all our lives, whether as citizens or consumers. Quite apart from its economic importance, we rely on it for information, entertainment and education. It helps mould our culture, our attitude and reaction to events, and we have a vital interest in its accuracy and impartiality—and thus in its ownership, management and control.
	2. Moreover, the industry's contribution to the UK economy is considerable and growing at a faster rate than any other part of the economy. The Government White Paper on "A New Future for Communications" reported that UK creative industries generate revenue approaching £60 billion a year, contributing 4 per cent to GDP, whilst the telecommunications industry generates revenues of £3 I billion and contributes 2 per cent to GDP.
	3. As another example of the industry's importance, the power of the media to destroy reputation—where inaccurate or biased information is used—is arguably far greater than that of the courts to protect them. Human rights issues for individuals or organisations have, quite rightly, a higher profile since the European Convention of Human Rights became part of UK domestic law. A reformed House of Lords, with an even greater complement of independent peers, could play an increasingly important part in assessing and advising upon the impact of such changes. Moreover, even during the last five years, communication matters have been debated in the House on no less than 21 occasions—not including the time devoted to the current OFCOM paving Bill.
	4. These issues become all the more challenging with the spread of international and multimedia ownership. So too because of the overlap between UK controls—statutory, self-regulatory and common law—and those of the European Union; and in other countries from which communications to UK citizens and consumers may increasingly originate.
	5. The House of Lords already contains Peers with considerable experience of, and expertise in, the communications industry. (96 have had either career involvement in the sector or have listed communications as a 'special interest'.) A tacit acknowledgement of this expertise is the fact that at least the last two broadcasting Acts have been introduced in the Lords.
	6. The creation of a Communications Select Committee, able to require attendance of appropriate witnesses, could have particular value in informing policy development in this area. As an example of this, with the OFCOM Act (and its sister Act, expected later this year), a Lords Select Committee could be especially useful—not least in the assessment, pre and post the BBC's Charter review—of whether the BBC's particular relationship with OFCOM is working in the public interest.
	7. The Government's emphasis (in The House of Lords, Completing the Reform) is on using the reinforced independence, expertise and experience of a reformed second Chamber more effectively, but without duplicating or undermining the House of Commons' primacy. Whilst rejecting the setting up of a ". . . nexus of departmental select committees like those in the Commons . . .", the Government sees ". . . the second chamber (as) better placed to examine cross-cutting issues." (P. 11 para 13 in Supporting Documents.) A Lords Select Committee of the kind here proposed, would be addressing exactly such cross-cutting issues as would fall outside the remit of any one Commons departmental select committee.
	PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS SELECT COMMITTEE—REMIT.
	Possible areas of coverage suggested so far:
	—All broadcasting media and telex: radio and television— terrestrial, cable and satellite.
	—All aspects of the Internet and telecommunications (including mobile telephones.)
	—Newspaper and periodical publishing.
	—Film and video.
	—Advertising.
	Coverage to include ownership, licensing, control and management.
	A relatively wide remit may be thought necessary, because of the rapidly developing cross ownership and interactivity—broadband etc—between all methods of communications.
	APPENDIX 4
	Letter from Lord Peston requesting additional resources for the Economic Affairs Committee
	I am writing to you about the resource requirements of the Economic Affairs Committee's subcommittee to which their Lordships gave the task of scrutinising the Finance Bill. When its first report was debated, I indicated to the House that on the basis of this year's experience in future we would do the job in a more systematic and less pressurised way. The subcommittee would be set up immediately after the gracious speech, meeting in parallel to the main committee as it did last time. It would take a first tranche of evidence from witnesses in the period from then up to the budget itself. The witnesses themselves told us that would add to the usefulness of their contributions. This met with general approval from those present at the debate and from others of their Lordships who take an interest in financial and economic matters.
	To carry out its task the sub-committee needs a Clerk of its own, special advisers, and some secretarial experience. In essence the purpose of this letter is to ask the Liaison Committee to make available the required resources.
	30 October 2003
	APPENDIX 5
	Memorandum from Baroness Amos
	Draft Bills and Pre-Legislative Scrutiny Government Proposals 2003–04
	The Government have published nine draft Bills in Session 2002–03. We envisage publishing a similar, or slightly greater, number in Session 2003–04.
	The Joint Committee on the draft Gambling Bill will continue its work, to conclude by 8 April 2004.
	Draft Bills on Disabled People and a euro referendum have already been promised for next Session. The draft Disabled People Bill has been promised by the end of the year.
	A draft Charities Bill and a draft Mental Health Bill (building on the partial draft published in June 2002) have also been announced, though not necessarily for next Session. And the Government have announced that it will endeavour to publish a draft Regional Assemblies Bill in advance of any referendum.
	The Government will bring forward further plans for draft Bills, and proposals for what form pre-legislative scrutiny might take if any, through the usual channels as soon as possible after the Queen's Speech.
	10 November 2003

Lord Moran: rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but with the omission of paragraph 4 and that an ad hoc Select Committee should be appointed without delay to make a brief assessment of the constitutional, financial and social implications of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union and its effect on foreign and domestic policies, including the costs and benefits of continued membership".

Lord Moran: My Lords, the Liaison Committee is a distinguished body at the heart of the establishment. The three main political parties are represented on it by their leaders. However, its latest report is, I am afraid, far from being distinguished. Indeed, the committee—or at any rate those members of it who approved its recommendation—should be rather ashamed of what they have put forward.
	When I learned from the head of our research services that there was no authoritative and impartial report on what detachment from the European Union—in whole or in part—would mean for the United Kingdom, I and some colleagues decided that this gap must be filled. After consulting interested noble Lords, we asked in the names of 51 of them for a Select Committee to do this. When the Liaison Committee's report reached me, I was disconcerted to read that the proposal had been,
	"put forward by Lord Moran",
	and that the Paper outlining the proposal was also "from Lord Moran", with the other Peers subscribing to the proposal simply tucked away obscurely in a list at the end of Appendix 2. This included a mysterious mention of "fen" which must be intended for the distinguished noble Lord, Lord Biffen.
	All 50 noble Lords informed me—nearly all in writing—that they supported the proposal. It went forward to the committee, not in the name of a lone Cross-Bencher, but in the names of 51 noble Lords including a former Prime Minister, a former Speaker of the House of Commons, former senior Ministers and leading men of business. Throughout it refers to "we" and "ours". I am not accustomed to using the royal "we" in any memorandum I write. The way in which it was presented glossed over the fact that it came from 51 noble Lords. It gave a distinctly misleading impression to any casual reader.
	It is, I understand, rare for a request for a Select Committee to have this degree of support. I asked if there were precedents but have heard of none. I believe therefore that such a strongly supported request, on a matter of great public importance, can be regarded as unprecedented. It seems extraordinary that it should have been brushed aside as it was by the Liaison Committee.
	I turn now to the reasons given by the Liaison Committee for its rejection of the proposals. Its first and principal point was that a Select Committee would not be timely in view of the current Inter-Governmental Conference on the draft constitution for Europe. I suggest that that argument was irrelevant because whatever the IGC decided, it would still have been important to consider what detachment from the Union would mean for us. But the negotiations on the constitution collapsed, so that argument collapses as well. I believe, therefore, that we could have reapplied to the committee, but since it had already decided to recommend an ad hoc Select Committee on my noble friend Lord Joffe's Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill, an important proposal but one that affects far fewer people, the prospect of an early Select Committee on our proposal being arranged by the Liaison Committee seemed to me remote.
	The next argument was that the establishment of our committee,
	"is likely to be regarded as a negative intervention in the process by this House".
	I do not think that the Liaison Committee can have much experience of negotiation with foreign governments. I spent most of my working life in the Foreign Service. Anyone in that service knows that it is a great help in negotiations to have one's own legislature seen to be interesting itself in an issue. Officials in the State Department are past masters at this. They tell their opposite numbers that they sympathise with their point of view, but that their hands are tied by the line being taken by Senator So-and-so. A study on the lines we propose would help, not hinder, our negotiators in Europe.
	Then the Liaison Committee said that it doubted,
	"whether it would be possible to isolate the Committee's deliberations from wider political considerations".
	I cannot think what that means. I was hoping that the Chairman of Committees might be able to enlighten us. Perhaps it means that Tony Blair would not welcome such a committee.
	Lastly, the Liaison Committee said that the,
	"resources required to conduct such an exercise would be disproportionate".
	That might be true if the Select Committee were to undertake an enormous, comprehensive study of the pros and cons of detachment from the Union. Such a study, which the Government ought to have carried out long ago, would no doubt require the efforts of the whole of Whitehall and its report might be comparable in size with the Phillips report on BSE. It could be undertaken only by the Government. But the Select Committee need not undertake a comprehensive study of this kind. It would be more sensible to plan a short, sharp inquiry, bringing together in a readable form the details already in the public domain and getting expert witnesses to help to assess the various costs and benefits. In sum, I find none of the Liaison Committee's arguments convincing.
	Why do 51 Peers think it important and urgent that this study should be undertaken? The reason is that they and I believe that people in our democracy should be given clear, unbiased information about issues that will affect all of them and their children after them. No irrevocable decisions ought to be taken without public assent. I told the Liaison Committee that I believed that it would be irresponsible for the House to decline to undertake such a study. That is still my view.
	The Government require regulatory impact assessments for very obscure regulations and for all EU directives. Why should they oppose a much more necessary assessment of the costs and benefits of our membership of the EU? Before long we may face serious decisions. The draft constitution may have hit a roadblock in December, but it will soon be resurrected, as Bertie Ahern told us today. Two Members of the other place, David Heathcoat-Amory and Gisela Stuart, have published accounts which explain all too clearly what Giscard's convention is about—a part of the inexorable pressure being put forward towards a federal or unitary European state. We have to face a choice between commitment to that or stepping back at least to a degree of disengagement, perhaps a looser attachment.
	Other countries such as Sweden, for example, make sure that their peoples give consent to major policies. I believe that we have a duty to help all sections of the public to understand the choices facing this country by giving them the unvarnished facts and setting out the issues impartially. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve.
	It does not ask for a committee to recommend what we should do, but for one which would set out clearly the facts on which any future decisions should be based. I have not asked that the plan for a committee to consider Lord Joffe's proposal should be dropped. If resources permit, by all means let us have two committees. But I do think it essential that consideration of our proposal should begin, as requested in my amendment, "without delay". It should be given priority.
	I cannot understand why the Government and many Europhiles appear to take the line that there should be no discussion of our relationship with the EU. If we in this House cannot consider that kind of issue then we might as well pack up and be replaced by a line of pot plants.
	The Government apparently consider that it should be left to them to make the decisions behind closed doors. They remind me of the clerics who for so long resisted the printing of the Bible in English. They burned any copies they could find and, where possible, those who had made the translations.
	The Government have no reason to fear the conclusions of this committee. They have said that withdrawal from the EU would be a disaster. With their great resources, they can put the case underlying that to the committee better than anyone else. No doubt the committee would take their views very seriously. I suggest that it is not sensible to refuse to allow reasonable discussion and analysis of these issues. If the Government persist in doing that, they may later face much more extreme opposition.
	Our proposal has nothing to do with party politics. I ask my colleagues on the party Benches to look at this issue not as party men and women, but as parliamentarians. Let us all think of the people where we live. Is it right to withhold from them a dispassionate analysis of the costs and benefits of our EU membership and of the drive towards European integration? Should not they be told whether we can be wholly confident of the survival of an institution when its own auditors have refused to sign off its accounts for nine years in succession, something that would sink any business?
	If you think it is right to keep them in the dark, then of course vote against my amendment. But if you believe that they should be told clearly and honestly what is involved and that this should not be suppressed and concealed, then I hope that you will vote for it. Public confidence in Parliament is diminishing because people think that we do not pay enough attention to their concerns. Many of them have concerns about the EU. They are bombarded with regulations. As taxpayers they pay huge amounts to the EU. They see remote and inaccessible bureaucrats interfering in every aspect of their lives. Some, like the fishermen, have their livelihoods destroyed.
	To carry out this study would help to show that we in Parliament, who have the necessary resources, admirable Clerks and Members of the House who really know about economics, business, agriculture, defence and much else, can help to meet some of those concerns. We can do this job better than anyone else.
	During my 20 years in this House, the worst mistake I saw the House make was to reject Lord Blake's proposal for a public referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. I hope that this time we shall put the interests of the British people first and help to put the facts fairly and squarely to them with the minimum delay. This is what my amendment seeks to achieve. I respectfully commend it to the House and I beg to move.
	Moved that, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but with the omission of paragraph 4 and that an ad hoc Select Committee should be appointed without delay to make a brief assessment of the constitutional, financial and social implications of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union and its effect on foreign and domestic policies, including the costs and benefits of continued membership".—(Lord Moran.)

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I wish to speak to the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do so because of my respectful belief that the Liaison Committee's decision not to set up a communications Select Committee is one that does need to be reconsidered. And I hold that belief, I should say, at least as passionately as my noble friend Lord Moran holds his. Indeed, I dare to believe that it is founded upon, if not a more practical, at least a stronger argument. Obviously I do not expect a miracle today, but I hope for an undertaking that I can return with this topic to the next meeting of the committee and that the members will be ready to reconsider it with an open mind.
	I raise this matter again because of the many noble Lords on all sides of the House who felt, like me, that given the considerable communications expertise in this House, an independent Lords Select Committee would be of considerable value in the fast-moving times that lie ahead for the whole of the communications industry, not least during the next few years of the BBC's Royal Charter review and, of course, other issues such as the future of ITV and the general uncertainty in the print media.
	Let me start by registering my real puzzlement, both about the latest decision and about the way it was arrived at by the Liaison Committee. When the Committee first met to consider my proposal, I could not attend in person, but I had written a letter setting out the case for a communications Select Committee in some detail. Those detailed reasons, contributed to by the many Members of this House with communications expertise, are again set out in the Third Report of the Liaison Committee, which is before your Lordships today.
	We argued that communications were of such critical economic and cultural importance to us all that the real need was for an ongoing sessional Select Committee rather than the odd ad hoc one. As the Communications Bill was going through Parliament at that time, my proposal was, I thought sensibly, for the committee to be set up once the Bill was on the statute book.
	As your Lordships can imagine, we were delighted when the Liaison Committee appeared to express its clear agreement in principle to our proposal. The first report of the 2002–03 Session states:
	"We believe it would be a good subject for a House of Lords Committee".
	The report continued:
	"We would prefer the appointment of an adhoc committee in the first instance, with a view to making it permanent if it were a success. We will return to the matter with a firm recommendation nearer the time".
	So far, so good. We thought we could look forward to a firm recommendation for the establishment of a Select Committee of one kind or another. The only question that I had to address—or so it appeared to most people—when I was invited to the Liaison Committee's meeting on 10 November was whether there was to be a sessional or an ad hoc communications Select Committee, on the basis of the stated premise at the first meeting that
	"it would be a good subject for a House of Lords Committee".
	As one of the newer Members of your Lordships' House, I was—and probably remain—a procedural babe in arms. So, alas, I had no idea that I might take others with me to make the case more forcefully, as did the proposers of the other Select Committees under consideration that day. That option was not suggested in the letter of invitation.
	There is, incidentally, no guidance on the correct procedure to be followed for those suggesting Select Committees in the various House booklets. Perhaps that could be remedied in the next reprint. Obviously, had I had the support of such powerful players as, for example, the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam, Lord McNally and Lord Fowler, a much more convincing case would have been made. I can, therefore, only apologise to those who supported the idea so wholeheartedly for making, on my own, a clearly inadequate presentation.
	Of course, it is possible that we read too much into the words in the Liaison Committee's first report. But, along with many others, I do not think so. We still believe that we need to proceed on the basis of that initial opinion. So I very much hope that it may be possible for the proposal to be re-examined by the Liaison Committee, and that, on such an occasion, the real experts can be present to press the case for a more positive conclusion. I hope that the Chairman of Committees will feel able to give the House an assurance to that effect.

Lord Joffe: My Lords, as the introducer of the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill, I naturally welcome and support the Liaison Committee's report. I particularly support the recommendation in Clause 2 for the appointment of an ad hoc Select Committee on the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill, which should begin its work after the Easter Recess.
	I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for that recommendation, and also appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, have not challenged that recommendation in their amendments. As the Liaison Committee has made it clear that there is only sufficient resource available to support one Select Committee, it follows that I must oppose both amendments.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moran, in his address, felt that his amendment and the Select Committee on the European Union should have priority over the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill, but I heard no persuasive reasons to support that view.
	The importance of moving ahead with the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill is that there is already a Bill before the House. Public opinion surveys show consistently that at least 80 per cent of the population would support it. In addition, somewhere between 150 and 200 Peers have indicated their support. I could perhaps have rustled up 150 signatures to my Bill, but I thought that applications for a Select Committee were normally made by one individual Peer.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that, for a beginner coming to this House, it is rather difficult to understand the precise rules, and it would be helpful if those could be set down in writing. The one thing on which proponents and opponents of the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill agree is that it is essential that there should be informed deliberation on the Bill and the issues, and that a Select Committee is the ideal place for such deliberations, particularly as ethical issues are involved.
	The urgency is that such a Bill could eventually—I emphasise that word—prevent great and unnecessary suffering. The sooner that day comes, the sooner the suffering will be prevented. Many patients who suffer unbearably desperately hope that a favourable Select Committee recommendation will open up the opportunity for the Government to adopt the Bill, even though the patients realise that it will almost certainly be too late for them.
	If there are to be two Select Committees, there is no case for priority to be given to the European Union Select Committee. The Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill should receive such priority.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall make a brief intervention in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. It is surely in the national interest, and there is an urgent need for an objective assessment now—a clear, unbiased source of information, as the noble Lord put it in his own words—devoid of party political motivation and stamped with the hallmark of authority, which only a Select Committee of this House can confer.
	I have had a word with my noble friend, and the Jellicoe convention was assuredly not devised to inhibit setting up ad hoc committees in exceptional circumstances such as these. Your Lordships may think that there is a matter of priority, but that is for the House, not for the Liaison Committee, if challenged, as it is.
	I take the point made by the Chairman of Committees. I declare my interest as a signatory—one of the 51 on Appendix 2 to the original application. I accept that the original application was far more extensive and far reaching than the assessment sought on the Motion today. But, why was it rejected? Three reasons were given in paragraph 4, suggesting that such a committee would be regarded as a negative institution, that it would not be possible to isolate party political considerations and that it was disproportionate in its regard and need for resources. No reasoning is given for any of those conclusions, which we simply have to accept on the nod. Why should we?
	Those considerations and objections do not apply to the form in which this assessment is sought today. I shall sit down in a moment, but if noble Lords look at the form and wording of the Motion, it is an assessment. In those circumstances, surely this must now be a matter for the House. It is no good, having taken time challenging the report, to send it back again to the same committee. The questions of priorities, exceptional circumstances and national need are questions for the House. I believe it is so, but what does that matter? This is a question for the House. I support the amendment.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. I do so because I think the original claims she made on behalf of not only herself but a number of us in this regard, set out in the appropriate appendix, are still very valid today. As the noble Baroness explained, the Liaison Committee at first seemed to support the proposal for a communications Select Committee. So naturally, one looks at the Liaison Committee's reasons for going back upon that proposition.
	I am not at all impressed by the reasons given in paragraph 8 of the report. For example, the committee emphasises that many aspects of the subject of communications have recently been discussed at length in the debates on the Communications Bill in the last Session and the pre-legislative scrutiny that that Bill received. To my mind, that only shows the tremendous range of interests and ramifications of the subject of communications, which deserve the attention of a Select Committee.
	Also in paragraph 8, the Liaison Committee says that the remit envisaged,
	"is also very wide and is more suited to a sessional Select Committee".
	It then proceeds to damn the idea of a sessional committee without giving any reasons. In other words, the Liaison Committee declined to recommend either a committee ad hoc or on a sessional basis. With the best will in the world, I cannot follow the reasoning for that, and I therefore support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, as a member of the Liaison Committee, I would like to add a few words in support of the report produced by the Lord Chairman. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that I am certainly not ashamed of the report that has been produced, and I would like to explain why.
	I have been here for some three and a half years which, admittedly, makes me a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House. However, like many people, I have always looked with enormous respect at the work of the Select Committees produced by the House. I feel a very keen sense of responsibility to uphold the very high standards for which this House has become justifiably known. In reaching my decision on that day, I bore in mind the criteria that any subjects chosen for Select Committee consideration should be finite in both scope and time and that they should be salient. These considerations are, I believe, essential, if we are to continue to produce high-quality reports and to use the limited resources of your Lordships' House to best effect.
	Although I am a member of the Liaison Committee, I will not be swayed in my decisions either by the bringing along of heavyweight companions to add grist to the debate, nor by large numbers of people signing up. Making these decisions a sort of beauty contest would be a very dangerous path.
	The proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for a communications Select Committee failed my first test. They were very broad in scope. Had they been more finite and focused, I would have been more happy to support them, but I felt that such a subject was, as the report said, more suited to a Standing Committee process. However, I think we can look again at how this might be achieved.
	The proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, comprehensively failed my second and third tests. Our membership of the European Union has implications for almost every area of our economic, political and social life. I think we all agree on that; Eurosceptics are always saying how Brussels interferes with every facet of our life. It follows that any authoritative piece of work to assess the implications of withdrawal or the costs of benefit cannot be produced quickly, as the noble Lord said, but would need to address a wide range of subjects, from the economy to fisheries, from security to agriculture. It would need to draw on evidence from such a large number of sources that the resource implications would be mind-boggling. I say respectfully to the noble Lord that perhaps the reason no such piece of work has ever been undertaken or attempted is precisely because it would be so difficult to do. I also question the salience of such a committee, given that none of the political parties represented at Westminster has openly advocated withdrawal from the European Union.
	I am very content to support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. A Select Committee on the very difficult and emotive issue of assisted dying certainly meets all the criteria which I consider important, and I think will produce the sort of report for which your Lordships' House is notably well known.

Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, the case for overturning the recommendations of the Liaison Committee seems to rest on two issues—first, that there is an enormous amount of support for appointing a Select Committee to look at European conventions and, secondly, that delay in looking at those matters would be injurious to the country.
	I respectfully remind your Lordships that when we debated the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill in June, more than 50 of your Lordships took the trouble to attend and speak. There was a huge postbag for many of us—I had 74 letters in advance of the debate and many more after it. There is enormous concern around the country that this should happen.
	With regard to delay, again I respectfully remind your Lordships that a delay in considering assisted dying is literally a matter of life and death for not just a few people but for many. As the Select Committee would be charged to consider not only assisted dying but the nature of palliative care, it may be much nearer to the heart of many of us in this House than we can presently see.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, as one of the signatories to the request to the Liaison Committee, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
	I realise that ever-closer union with Europe is, to some Members of this House, the fulfilment of their vision of a supranational European state, bringing eternal peace in our time. I used to think that way too, but the idealistic fervour that drove me to think so has been tempered by time and, not least, by reality. Now I think differently.
	I have changed my mind, believing it better to be inconsistently right than consistently wrong. I think I am not alone, as every poll on this subject throughout the United Kingdom shows. The British public are becoming doubtful about the whole exercise and sceptical about its benefits. Even the Government's representative on the Giscard committee, Gisela Stuart, also changed her mind after first-hand experience of the realities of the EU—an honest and very brave thing to do.
	Over the next six months, this country will continue to negotiate terms for a European constitution which, as all objective observers agree, will result in a massive transfer of sovereignty. Except for limited issues, we will barely be self-governing any more.
	The undeniable change makes it imperative to give the British public some positive facts against which they can weigh the benefits and disbenefits of deeper and wider European integration. As has been said, those who believe that deeper integration, in both economic and political terms, will be beneficial to United Kingdom citizens should welcome, to justify their claim, a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the EU to date. Those more sceptical, particularly in a month when we have—

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but is it in the best interests of this House for us to continue to debate the various issues? Is it not better to proceed to a conclusion?

Lord Vinson: My Lords, I am just rehearsing the background to why this subject is immensely important. I have virtually dealt with it and if the House will give me a couple of minutes more I should like to finish.
	Currently we have a £3 billion monthly deficit in our trade with the EC. It would be sensible to see precisely what membership is costing this nation—a point already well made. Hence the need for a fully authorised standing committee to report, and to report quickly, on this matter. We should all know if a different sort of Union is feasible, possibly under the variable geometry concept.
	I can appreciate that the Liaison Committee felt there was wide support for a report on voluntary euthanasia; indeed, I subscribe to such a report myself. However, that matter has a much longer timetable than the few months before we sign up to the EU Convention and all the constitutional changes that go with it. For that reason the Jellicoe convention limiting the number of standing committees should be regarded as precisely what it is: an indicative convention which in times of need should be ignored and the appropriate resources found and found quickly. There is, over this matter, a political imperative.
	It has been pointed out that precedentially it is highly unusual for 51 Peers, including a former Prime Minister and former Speaker of the House of Commons, to put their names to a resolution of this sort. That fact alone should have justified the Liaison Committee authorising a committee on the lines suggested on the Order Paper. That has been worded more impartially and will attract even wider support from Members of your Lordships' House.
	Our constitution has been developed over 1,000 years and given us political and economic stability second to none, but one which we all too easily take for granted. It is exceptional. It must not be bartered away unless and until the British public know what they are getting in exchange.
	There is a fundamental democratic inadequacy manifest in EU affairs—better known as the democratic deficit.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, with great respect, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but are we debating a resolution of 51 Members of this House? I suspect we are not. We are debating a report of the Liaison Committee and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. We are not debating the substance of the matter at the moment, as other noble Lords have said.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, with respect, we are debating an amendment which I am trying to recommend.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I can point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the Companion states that speeches in this kind of debate can run for 15 minutes, though I am not saying they have to. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, spoke for only 10 minutes. But the other side attempting to gag this side of the debate is unhelpful and time consuming.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, I am speaking to the amendment and I have nearly finished.
	To repeat, there is a fundamental democratic inadequacy manifest in EU affairs, better known as the democratic deficit. We must not repeat that error in our own democracy. The British people must be allowed to decide on the facts. If an EU constitution is imposed without a real effort to explain its desirability—and then a referendum—the whole EU experiment will be doomed because it will lack the endorsement of democratic legitimacy.
	It would be odd if, on looking back at the history of this House in years to come, we saw that resources could be found to discuss the voluntary termination of human life but comparable resources could not be found to highlight the facts that could prevent the political euthanasia of our own self-governing country. I urge the Liaison Committee to think again and find the resources to do both. The British people deserve to know the facts.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this afternoon's debate. Clearly this is a matter for the House. The Liaison Committee is a House committee. I am speaking now as the Leader of the House and as a member of the Liaison Committee.
	We had a long and interesting debate on Monday about this House and the fact that we treasure self-regulation above all else. A responsibility rests on us all if we treasure that self-regulation. However, the discussion into which we are now drifting is moving away from the relevance of the Motion on the Order Paper; we are drifting into discussing issues with respect to the three proposals put before the Liaison Committee.
	While I am on my feet—as I said, I had not intended to intervene—and speaking as a member of the Liaison Committee (I underline, not as a government Minister), as the Chairman of Committees said to the House, the House has delegated to the Liaison Committee the function of considering requests for ad hoc Select Committees. We had three proposals before us and we considered them extremely carefully. We came to a clear recommendation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that the whole point of the Liaison Committee is called into question if the House is going to re-run that discussion and second guess the committee's judgment without good reason.

Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of my noble friend and add two matters to the debate. One is that I first started to do cost benefit work 40 years ago and have had a great deal of experience in that regard. I can say therefore that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is absurd. The notion that a cost benefit study of the magnitude implied can be done briefly shows that there is no understanding of the subject whatsoever. I say that in terms because it is important that your Lordships understand what is being represented to us. It is possible that, with a lot of resources and perhaps three years, we might get somewhere. But the notion of "brief" is of no help to your Lordships or to the country at large.
	Secondly, I have the privilege of being the chairman of one of your Lordships' major committees. I regard it as a miracle that every year we come up with an agreed report. Without boasting, that requires a great deal of talent. It is inconceivable that we could set up a committee to do this job that would get within a million miles of agreement. It would simply create trouble.
	I hate to add a political point to the debate, but for some years I watched the Europhobes totally disrupt the last Tory government and come very close to destroying the Tory Party, which I did not like. The notion that we should give them any encouragement to disrupt your Lordships' House and damage it is appalling. The sooner we stop this, the better. I was rather disappointed that the Chairman of Committees almost implied that we might go back to the proposal. We must say no now, once and for all. We ought to support the Liaison Committee, as my noble friend the Leader of the House says, and get on with the business. There are more important matters confronting your Lordships at this time.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in echoing what the Lord Chairman of Committees said.
	It is worth reminding the House that the purpose of the Liaison Committee is to allocate resources between Select Committees; to consider requests for ad hoc committees; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses and to consider the availability of noble Lords to serve on committees.
	This afternoon—it may become this evening before too long—we have heard a re-run of much that was debated in the Liaison Committee. The House not only delegated but asked the Liaison Committee to do the sifting work and report to the House. The Liaison Committee acts as a servant of the House, though it is undoubtedly true that the final decision lies with the House.
	The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that we were faced with three decisions. We were also faced with a proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It was rather good. It related to whether or not his economic sub-committee should have more and better resources. He put a powerful case.
	I opposed the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, not just because I found the issue deeply distasteful, but also because neither the Labour Government nor a future Conservative government would hold out any prospect whatsoever of ever bringing forward legislation to deal with that subject. Therefore I consider it to be a waste of time for the House to debate it. However, that was not the majority view of the Liaison Committee. As a member of that committee, and as I subscribe to the rules of the House, I therefore support the conclusion to which the Liaison Committee came.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has made a powerful case on the interesting subject of the European Union, but I wonder whether—I say this in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, the chairman of the European Union Committee, of which we have many sub-committees in the House—this kind of issue should be a subject for the EU sub-committees rather than for ad hoc Select Committees. Given what has happened in recent months—the failed constitution and the other kinds of chaos coming from the European Union—their time may be very well spent on this subject.
	I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said: this is not a party political matter—there will be a free vote—but I hope that the House will feel that the Lord Chairman of Committees deserves support in this matter.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords—

Lord McNally: My Lords, I wonder whether—

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally for giving way. My name has been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition but I speak only for myself. This matter has not been discussed by members of the committee in any formal sense and, frankly, I would not touch it with a barge pole.
	My reason for saying so is simply this: we have a very full programme of scrutiny to conduct in the European Union Select Committee and we depend upon the seven sub-committees to do their work to enable us to complete the process. We would not be serving this House or the country if, at a time when scrutiny of European affairs is so important, we pre-empted all the work that we are doing now to take on a study which, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, probably would not reach a conclusion and for which we would not have the resources anyway.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I was a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Communications Bill chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, which is referred to in the report. There was no doubt in our minds that the Communications Bill and the work carried out on it was only half-time in a parliamentary process to determine the shape of our broadcasting industry in the 21st century. That is why I believe that the committee misdirected itself. There is no doubt, as the minutes quoted by the noble Baroness in 2002 show, that the committee had accepted the logic of this House retaining some kind of monitoring and assessment of the decisions made in communications after the passing of the Communications Act.
	The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who unfortunately has had to leave to attend another appointment, called me aside and—

Noble Lords: He is here.

Lord McNally: My Lords, then perhaps he will nod and reaffirm the assurances and discussions we had at the time the pre-legislative scrutiny committee was in process.
	I do not want to debate the totality of the committee's decisions. I say to my noble friend Lady Scott that where she is absolutely wrong is that there is a finite and salient issue here. The decisions that will be made about broadcasting and communications in the next 18 months will shape the industry for well into the 21st century. I say to noble Lords that the House will discover the mistake that the committee has made—and that the House has made—when, down the Corridor, Mr Gerald Kaufman and his committee regularly, week by week, scrutinise what is happening in the industry and we at this end of the Corridor are impotent and without the resource and ability to follow these important developments. These are immediate issues; they are happening now. The reason that the committee made the right decision in 2002 and misdirected itself in 2003 is because of the saliency and urgency of the matters to be discussed.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I wonder whether it is appropriate now for me to wind up the debate. I sense that the House would like to reach a conclusion on the matter.
	I do not intend—I cannot anyway—to respond to every point made by noble Lords, particularly those who went into what might be described as a Second Reading debate on the merits or otherwise of membership of the European Union. All I will say is that the arguments were considered carefully by the Liaison Committee, as our report indicates.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moran, made much of the fact that 51 Peers had signed their support for his proposal. The Liaison Committee also had letters of support for the other two proposals. I am certain that had the other two proposers gone around the House attempting to collect support for their proposals, they, too, would have attracted a large number of signatures. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, a member of the Liaison Committee, said, do we want to make our decisions based on the number of signatures that can be collected in support of any one or more proposal? Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, said that he supported the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, as well. If that is to be the case, we might as well scrap the Liaison Committee altogether and merely send a questionnaire to noble Lords to decide what we should do.
	I took slight exception to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the reason the Liaison Committee did not like his proposal was because it might upset the Prime Minister. I would point out that only three members of the Liaison Committee are members of the government party. The others are independents and Conservatives. Looking at the list of members, I do not believe that they would be influenced by whether or not the Prime Minister happened to like that particular decision.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, felt that she was at a disadvantage because she did not bring supporters. She did not realise that she could bring supporters to the meeting. It has been a practice recently—but only recently, I agree—to bring one or two supporters along to address the Liaison Committee. Indeed, the practice where the proposers themselves attend is fairly new. However, it is the quality of the case made and the suitability of the subject matter that counts, not the number of supporters present at the meeting. In fact an examination of the report will show that to be the case because the noble Lord, Lord Moran, brought two supporters and his bid was not successful.
	It is true that in February 2002 the Liaison Committee reported to the House that communications would be a good subject to be considered by a committee, as the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord McNally, said. But the Liaison Committee makes clear in its report that it did not consider this to have been a firm commitment. It reviewed the proposal afresh and concluded that the remit was very wide and more suited to a sessional Select Committee than an ad hoc committee. It further concluded that the topic had no particular claim to be the subject of a dedicated Select Committee. In other words, quite simply, the Liaison Committee changed its mind.
	I would remind your Lordships once again that the House makes provision for only one ad hoc Select Committee at any one time and the Liaison Committee has made a clear recommendation in favour of a committee on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. That is not to say that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, cannot bring their proposals back to the Liaison Committee in the future if they wish. I know that that may disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but I cannot stop them bringing their proposals back and nor can he. Indeed, given that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, differs from his original proposal, that course would seem desirable in that particular case.
	In view of the usual practice of the House to follow the recommendations of the Liaison Committee, I hope that your Lordships will support its report and that the amendments will not be moved.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees sits down, he will recall that I wrote to him last week setting out a number of concerns. I wonder whether he will answer two questions to help the House.
	First, when the Liaison Committee considered the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill, did it weigh up the fact that there had already been a Select Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, which had looked at exactly these issues and decided, by a majority decision, to oppose any change in the law? Will he say what medical, ethical or legal issues have changed since then and whether he and the Select Committee took into account that, in the debate that took place in June of last year on this Bill, the majority of your Lordships opposed it, along with the Royal Colleges and the BMA?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not want to go into the merits of patient assisted dying. That is not my role. I have a view on it, but it is not for me to disclose what that view might be. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the fact that the matter was looked at, but it was looked at 10 years ago. If he looks at the evidence given to the Select Committee, he will see that a number of factors have changed since then.

Lord Moran: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally sits down, he took exception to my reference to the Prime Minister, but in my speech I asked what was the meaning of the committee's decision that:
	"We doubt whether it would be possible to isolate the Committee's deliberations from wider political considerations".
	I said that I could not understand that. The noble Lord has not yet explained what it means. Could he very briefly tell us?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that at this stage I can add anything further to what is in the report.

Lord Moran: My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have supported my amendment. I am afraid that this has been a rather mixed and muddled debate. I had hoped, and asked, that we should debate the two parts separately so that those who wished to speak about Europe and those who wished to speak about communications could do so. I thought that that would be much clearer and less confusing. Unfortunately, I was told that the procedure was the other way, and so we have had a rather confusing debate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is an eminent economist and knows much more about these things than I do. In answer to the points that he made, I believe that if we were to adopt his point of view, we would never be able to discuss these matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has explained, the EU Select Committee and its sub-committees discuss legislation, which is right and proper. They do not discuss—and the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has explained that they do not wish to discuss—our fundamental relationship with the Union. That is what I have asked that they should do. It may be that in the technical terms of cost benefit analysis, it would be impossible to do it in under three years; in that case, I hope it will be taken as a guideline and not as a strict rule. I believe that a short, sharp report, which would initiate public discussion of this matter, which has been kept under wraps, would be valuable.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. There are many other Members of this House who wished to support his amendment, but they did not do so because the Chairman of Committees rose to close the debate. Out of courtesy to him and the procedures of the House, we did not proceed to put our points of view. I, for one, feel that I have been robbed of that opportunity.

Lord Moran: My Lords, I have a very great respect for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and I paid very careful attention to what she said. I think that this is a matter of great importance and a matter for the House. Although we have been able to debate it today only in a very summary way, I think it is right that we should have an opportunity to express our view. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
	*Their Lordships divided: Contents 58; Not-Contents, 195.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to the Motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Committees, at end to insert "but with the omission of paragraphs 5 to 8; and that the report be remitted back to the Liaison Committee in respect of those paragraphs with an instruction that the committee should reconsider the proposal for a Select Committee on Communications".

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I would like to thank noble Lords who spoke in support of my amendment. I am indeed grateful to them and to the many noble Lords around the House who have said how warmly they support my proposition. However, having listened to what the Chairman of Committees said, I note that he warmly invited us to return to the committee with the same or even a better proposal. I assure him that we will take up his offer at the earliest possible moment, so I will not move the amendment.

[Amendment not moved.]

Lord Brightman: My Lords, may I raise one very short point on the report of the Liaison Committee? Appendix 5 tells us that nine or more Bills will be available in draft form before First Reading. I have made inquiries at the Printed Paper Office and the Minute Room and, apparently, notice that a draft Bill has become available for collection is published nowhere. I suggest that there might be a note in the Minute Paper of the availability of a Bill in draft form. For example, there could be a brief note of it just before the statement of Bills in progress.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having given me notice of his question. I am sure that we can deal with that request sympathetically and find some way of meeting it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Direct Marketing to Children

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: rose to call attention to the extent of marketing aimed directly at children and the case for limiting its effects on society, children and families; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I start with a nostalgic reflection. The more one looks at the pressures on today's children to become adults well before it makes any kind of sense, the more I realise just how much easier was the task of bringing up children for my own generation of parents. In those days of black and white TV, there were limited channels as well as limited viewing hours. But, even then, I can remember huge tussles about viewing favourite TV programmes when homework had not been finished. In those days TV advertising was in its infancy. Today, incidentally, we are told that most children keep the TV on while doing homework. That is something that would have horrified my old English teacher.
	So it should be no surprise that today marketing to children is very big business indeed. The UK pre-school market alone is worth no less than £4.3 billion a year. Given that 76 per cent of pre-school children watch two hours or more television each day, and children between the ages of four and 15 watch rather more than that, it is hardly surprising that the food industry, marketeers and advertisers regard children as such a good target audience.
	During my time at the Broadcasting Standards Commission, we researched various aspects of children's broadcasting—both its quantity and quality. In those days, only 15 years ago, there was near invisibility of pre-school material. Overall, we found that the quantity was certainly up and the quality down, with far too many cartoons and a paucity of good drama. Since then the number of children's programmes has grown significantly—from over 10,000 hours in 1996 to over 32,000 in 2001. That is largely due to the increase in dedicated children's channels such as Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.
	It is hardly surprising that that greatly increases the volume of advertising to which children are exposed. Our newspapers, too, have grown considerably in size, as have the number of adverts and promotions that they contain. But it is advertising on TV—that additional member of the family in every household—where the effects are perceived as greatest. That, along with the growing emphasis on successfully promoting brand loyalty, the use of celebrity endorsement and what are called "tie-ins"—the "must have" Muppet or Lord of the Rings model and the like. That is not the only form of expansion that affects the situation. More than three out of four of those between five and 16 now have their own television.
	Computers, too, are increasingly seen—rightly, we must concede—as a "must have", if children are to cope with today's technological taken-over world. It is more and more possible, with the rollout of broadband, for them to receive "broadcast" material on computers—including adverts. Finally, three out of four youngsters own a mobile phone on which again it is increasingly possible to receive, among other forms of communication, broadcast material, desirable and otherwise. Only a few days ago, our attention was drawn to the increased availability of child pornography online.
	This background, I hope, sets the scene. What about the problems posed by all that in today's universal global market economy? There are a number of reasons why we should be concerned; first and foremost, by the inevitably high pressure all that puts on parents to buy the goods advertised. Parents are already undervalued for the role they play in bringing up tomorrow's citizens. Yet in so many ways the state fails to support them in that vital task. It is hardly surprising that no less than 84 per cent of parents feel that companies marketing their products target children too much; and at an increasingly young age.
	Parents have, as the National Family and Parenting Institute reports,
	"a sense of family life and parental control struggling under a tidal wave of marketing they cannot fight . . . They would like not to have their children seen as fair game by aggressive, smart marketing they cannot fight . . . with billions spent targeting children as consumers".
	It is not just the targeting of children as immediate consumers, but they are used by marketeers to pressure their parents to buy a wider range of goods, such as cars and holidays. If that kind of pester power, as well as peer pressure from other children, is a problem, as it clearly is for all parents, it becomes impossibly tough for poorer families.
	In face of that anxiety, what, if anything, happens elsewhere? Do any controls or regulations exist in other countries? Sweden and Greece ban advertising to children under 12. Australia and Ireland and other countries ban advertising during pre-school children's programmes. By contrast, apparently, Britain has the highest rates in Europe of advertising to children.
	Some form of guidance does already exist in this country. For example, each advert for TV has to be pre-vetted by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre, with any complaints made to the Independent Television Commission. Restrictions cover adverts which might cause harm to children—physically, mentally or morally—or take advantage of the natural credulity of children. Adverts are also not permitted that
	"exhort children to purchase or to ask their parents to make enquiries or purchase".
	However, there have been complaints that the system has not proved effective. Regarding the print media the non-statutory Advertising Standards Authority, through its CAP Code is the industry's watchdog. It lays down strict provisions about what may or may not be marketed to children. A recent ASA report says that there is not a general problem with non-broadcast material targeted at children.
	Ofcom, the new communication industry's regulator, with the ITC's responsibility for TV adverts since the beginning of the year, is currently engaged in public consultation on how TV and radio adverts should in future be regulated. Ofcom's overall policy is for lighter, not stronger, regulation and they hope to co-regulate the advertising aspects of their responsibilities with the ASA. Both bodies will have important powers if they choose to use them.
	So is that existing statutory regulation and self-regulation enough? To illustrate the way in which we might respond to that question, I shall give an example. One of the most worrying developments over recent years is the increase in obesity. One can see there all too clearly one possible result of increased marketing. In recent years obesity among six year-olds in this country has doubled to 8.5 per cent and for 15 year olds has trebled to 15 per cent. Girls are the worst affected. A further concern is that with so much time spent on computers and watching TV the young are not taking anything like enough exercise.
	It is hard to believe that those figures have nothing to do with the fact that the global spend on marketing food is an incredible £40 billion. An interesting figure to put that in perspective is that for every dollar spent by the World Health Organisation on preventing obesity and related illnesses, the global food industry spends 500 dollars promoting fatty foods. Diabetes UK is but one of the many health organisations which are concerned about that.
	In the UK, food advertising accounts for some 50 per cent of all advertising in children's programmes. Of that, three-quarters was for fast or convenience food. It is small wonder that a Guardian poll in October last year showed that 57 per cent of adults wanted food advertising banned during children's TV programmes. With the growing concern about the increase in child obesity and with other countries sharing our concerns about direct marketing, is it time for further action in the UK? That is a difficult question. There is an inevitable unease, which I share, about living in what is seen as an increasingly nanny state.
	Moreover, we are calling almost daily, and equally rightly, for young people to be fully involved in decisions that effect them—not least if we are to re-engage them as our future citizens in democratic processes. So why should not the young, it might be asked, be exposed to and learn to cope early with modern market forces? So is voluntary action, self-regulation, likely to be a sufficient response to this kind of anxiety? We might consider whether the new children's commissioner should have responsibility in that respect. Do we need more than that?
	Most companies today are well aware, through Mori polls and the like, that customer loyalty, and therefore a successful bottom line, depends on them behaving as corporate responsible citizens. Where more important than in the food marketing industry? To move further down that road may be sufficient to change some of the most unscrupulous marketing techniques.
	Voluntary actions such as those increasingly being agreed between manufacturers and school authorities—to remove brand logos from vending machines in schools and to introduce and promote water, fruit and healthier foods alongside the unhealthy favourites—are surely steps in the right direction. Certainly, that kind of behaviour can usefully be encouraged throughout the country.
	Happily, with a number of government pilot schemes, there are signs that this is beginning to happen. In recent months, too, the increased media coverage about the dangers to us all from unhealthy foods has raised general awareness of the problem as well as an increase in MPs' questions calling for more action by the Government.
	So if restraint could be agreed voluntarily for all advertisements used on TV before the watershed, or at the very least during actual children's programmes, and if Ofcom plays the important media education role it has been given and sees to it that children as well as adults become more sceptical viewers, that may be all that is needed.
	But if, as I suspect to be the case, that proves ineffective, it may be time to begin applying—especially to the marketing of unhealthy food to children—the well rehearsed "precautionary principle"; that is, it is time to take further action when threats of harm to human health or the environment are seen even though the cause and effect relationship has not been fully established.
	Both the Food Standards Agency—I am sure that we will hear more about its views from my noble friend Lady Howarth—and the Consumers' Association would appear to support further action along those lines. So does the scale of parental concern shown in a number of recent surveys. The National Family and Parenting Institute states:
	"Expecting parents to continue to bear the main burden of gate-keeping—in an environment where the full creative and economic might of the marketing world is put to persuading children to buy—seems unfair, unworkable and detrimental to both the children's and parents' best interests".
	And as one parent put it:
	"It's tough sometimes . . . and I need to ask if the advertising industry are comfortable spending millions of pounds targeting children direct and then saying it's down to mum and dad to stand up to them".
	Perhaps the best example so far of the development of the "precautionary principle" has been with the tobacco industry. The natural desire in a democratic society to allow adult citizens to choose whether or not to smoke has given way over time, as scientific knowledge of damage to health has grown, to a total ban on tobacco advertising of any kind. And soon, if exhortation fails, we are likely to see a ban on smoking in public places.
	In closing, I should like to remind your Lordships once again of the blatant brand marketing to pre-school children to the value of £4.3 billion a year. Should that be allowed to continue during children's programmes? A Private Member's Bill was recently introduced in the other place by Debra Shipley MP which would go some way to banning advertising during pre-school children's TV. I would support that step along the legislative road. The question is—and I hope that it will be addressed by your Lordships—how much further should we go in that legislative direction?
	I am particularly looking forward to hearing the views, priorities and suggestions for action that your Lordships will put forward in your speeches. And of course, above all, I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government's reaction is to this area of concern and their plans to deal with it. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Addington: My Lords, although I am interested in the subject of the debate, I wondered whether I had sufficient knowledge to make a worthwhile speech, but when I received a piece of briefing I was convinced that I should speak. It arrived via my Whips Office from the Advertising Association. The first page outlines the advertising industry's view on advertising to children. Paragraph 4 states:
	"Advertising provides information to make choices"—
	okay, that is not too bad remembering that we are talking about children—
	"and in many of the mature UK food markets, advertising merely drives brand share and endorses loyalty".
	Anyone who took an interest in the Bill banning tobacco advertising heard that argument a great deal. I thought it was spurious when we were talking about adults and in this situation I think that it is patently absurd. I also think that it is insulting to the intelligence of your Lordships that such advertising should be brought out.
	I hope that the Advertising Association takes this kick in the pants and feels it as hard as I am aiming it. It has succeeded in raising another voice against it. I hope that if the association is paying someone to produce this stuff, it demotes him or gets rid of him. It is vaguely insulting.
	Having been inspired, I started to look a little further. It became clear that behind that attitude lay the fear that there would be a ban or restriction on the advertising of confectionery, fizzy drinks and so forth. That has undoubtedly been inspired by the fact that a huge industry was built up around the claiming of compensation for damage resulting from the use of tobacco and in relation to tobacco advertising. The great advertising industry, having won on tobacco, is now turning to new targets. It may by cynical opportunism by some or it may be seen as a campaign by others. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, rightly asked how far we should go down the legislative road. What are we trying to do here? Where are we going?
	Due to the shortness of time, I referred only to the executive summary of the FSA report, but when I began to read it I suddenly said, "This isn't rocket science". Home static entertainment has reached saturation level. When I was growing up, a long time ago now, only two channels provided children's programmes. They were shown only for a short time and to a mass market. As the noble Baroness said, today there are channels dedicated totally to the younger market.
	I have a daughter who at 16 months is beginning to recognise television programmes—or probably I have noticed that she is beginning to do so. That means she is a ready-made target for advertising. The BBC markets spin-off toys for children—I have bought them for nephews who recognised the TV programme and wanted the toy—and that is a form of advertising.
	However, we must look strongly at dietary advertising shown at certain times. The fact of the matter is that we like to eat fat, salt and sugar and we always have done. Our traditional fast food is fish and chips—not the slimmers' paradise, we can safely say. The fast-food format of the big hit of fat, salt and sugar has become much more readily available.
	The FSA executive summary talks about the big four. I will not go into it, but it relates to the consumption of food purchased in supermarkets. People sit around snacking a lot of foods without a good nutritional balance and which are very high in calories and so forth. We have an audience which sits down and watches television as opposed to going out and doing things. As I said before, the fact that one had about two hours of children's programmes only meant that they had to find some other way of entertaining themselves, whether by kicking a football or something else. That meant that they could not just sit down. When sitting in front of a television set, which we all tend to do, we usually have something to eat or drink at the same time, whether a cup of tea or a sugary drink.
	If we are to look at one area of advertising, I would suggest very highly sugared and caffeinated drinks. These drinks are sold in schools and action is going to be taken. I have just received information that Canada has banned the sale of fizzy drinks and in Scotland action has been taken to restrict their impact and to remove advertising. That should be a way forward to remove one link.
	I discovered by accident through a radio programme that the consumption of cola drinks leads to consuming more calories more quickly. It is also very sugary. In the school environment one is going to be pumped up slightly more. We all know that because we all experience it. How often on a boring committee day have we had strong coffee and a couple of spoons of sugar to keep us awake? We all do and there is nothing new about it. The only thing that is new is the intensity of what is now taking place.
	If we wish to tackle obesity and improve behaviour in schools, we should think long and hard about exactly what we are going to do in this area because it involves all the other aspects of the matter under discussion. If we wish people to have immediate sugar hits while watching television, then why should they go out? They are having a sugar "rush"; they have a picture before them and they do not have to think or move. They have the wonderful comforting feeling that they are doing something which is slightly wrong. Why should they move? We must think long and hard about what we are doing.
	I occasionally find myself dragooned into doing a part of the family shopping with a small child. I have to make sure that she does not go too close to the brightly coloured items. I see families with perhaps three children going round the store. A child recognises a brightly-coloured packet and grabs it. I do not know what I would do in that situation with just one child. One can visualise three children grabbing their favourite sweets in association, for example, with a soft drink which is drunk by a sports star who is exhibiting a certain pair of trainers. I have recent experience of a particular brand of rugby boots provided to me and a few parliamentary friends. It was sports kit designed by arts students and worn by nobody. I will return to that and give names later on. It is incredibly difficult to resist products which are endorsed at that level.
	I go back to the original inspirational advertisement. Anyone who says that it is merely to ensure brand share is talking rubbish. Apart from everything else, the market is constantly changing and becoming a more established spending market. I hope that we shall look long and hard at this matter. We will not overreact because we have always had a degree of fast food in our culture such as fish and chips, although it is hamburger bars now. But let us try to keep a balance.
	We should look to see if there are certain big offenders in this market. I suggest that the first area we should look at is that of highly sugared and highly caffeinated drinks.

Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has chosen a very hot topic and developed the theme very skilfully. My consideration will focus mainly on food advertising and promotion. The nation has woken up at last to the extent and dangers of a developing epidemic of obesity. As the noble Baroness has said, some of the same considerations apply to the promotion of designer or branded toys, sports kit and computer games. These drain parents' bank balances and contribute to our massive private national debt. They encourage a sedentary lifestyle, which we do not want.
	I declare an interest in the problem of food advertising since I am chairman of the All-Party Food and Health Forum and honorary secretary of the National Heart Forum, which has just made a detailed submission to the Department of Health on policy options on food marketing to children, the very topic of this debate. A little later I shall outline some of its content, but first I would like to consider the role of exercise in the obesity epidemic.
	The food industry correctly points out that both children and adults have become much less physically active over the past two decades for a variety of reasons. That contributes to the imbalance between energy intake and energy output, which underlies the problem of overweight and obesity. I readily agree that this is the case and that to make a serious impact on the problem both sides of the equation need to be tackled.
	But when advocating physical activity as the solution, it is worth remembering that it takes a surprisingly large amount of activity to burn off surplus calories. As regards a standard-size energy dense product such as a Snickers or Mars bar, which weighs about 50 grams and contains about 300 calories—I am not speaking about the jumbo-size, which is twice as big and provides calories at a cheaper rate per calorie—one should look at ways in which one might dissipate the 300 calories in the bar.
	One way would be not to take the lift to the top of the Canary Wharf tower, but to climb the stairs at a fast rate of, say, 92 steps per minute, which would equate to 50 feet per minute. That is for an average-size adult. That exercise would metabolise about nine kilocalories each minute, according to Department of Health figures. To dissipate the energy in the Mars bar in that way would require 33 minutes of climbing. That would achieve a 1650 foot vertical ascent, the equivalent of walking to the top of the tower more than twice over. An overweight person would have more trouble in doing it because they would expend more energy each step. Only a trained athlete could do that without frequent stops for breath. I found the calculation very hard to believe. I have double checked the figures and they are correct.
	The point of the exercise is to emphasise how extremely difficult it would be to increase physical activity on a population-wide basis to the extent necessary to overcome our current obesity problem. To be fair, regular, moderate exercise does seem to increase the resting metabolic rate, which helps to use up further calories. Exercise must play a part in the fight against fat, but control of the food intake is far easier to achieve in the short term and in my view it is far more important.
	The noble Baroness has outlined the extent of the problem of advertising to children. I have some information to supplement hers coming from a monograph called "TV Dinners: What's being served up by the advertisers?", which is the result of careful research by Charlie Powell for Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming, which closely observed 40 hours of commercial television programmes. To summarise the results, food advertising is two to three times more frequent during children's hours of viewing than during adult viewing periods. Up to 10 food adverts per hour may appear during children's viewing of commercial television. More than half of the adverts for food during children's viewing times are for confectionery, cake or biscuits. Between 90 and 95 per cent of products shown are high in fat, sugar or salt. Fruit and vegetables are not advertised at all.
	A further thorough review and research into the effect of food advertising was carried out last year by Professor Gerard Hastings and his team from Strathclyde, City and Oxford universities—a review commissioned by the Food Standards Agency. I previously described that carefully conducted study in your Lordships' House during an Unstarred Question on obesity tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, last October. Its findings confirm and amplify Sustain's work, but its main impact was to establish clearly good research evidence that advertising influences children's food preferences and what they consume—research that, until recently, the food industry could, erroneously, say was lacking.
	That finding was scarcely surprising, as it is presumably to change children's habits that manufacturers and fast-food caterers promote their wares. They would not do it if it did not work. They know that it works. Unfortunately, the diet that they advertise, to cite the report to the Food Standards Agency,
	"varies greatly from the recommended one, and themes of fun and fantasy and taste, rather than health and nutrition are used to promote this to children".
	There is general agreement among the health professions, consumer organisations and the majority of parents that there is too much promotion of the wrong kind of food to children. We have already heard about that from both previous speakers.
	The question of whether to tighten the voluntary agreements entered into by the food and drink and advertising industries, which are now clearly insufficient, or to legislate, to introduce statutory legislation, now faces the Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health and, currently, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Ofcom. Judging by her more recent informal statements, the Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, although clearly recognising that there is a problem, would first like the food industry to put its own house in order.
	Most of those who work in public health in the widest sense feel that that is unlikely to be effective. The Minister herself, having battled with the tobacco industry, probably knows that too but, at present, tactics dictate that she wears kid gloves. In her words, she prefers,
	"not to pick a fight with the industry".
	Under such a voluntary agreement, the content or quality of advertisements under such a system might improve, but it is unlikely that the industry will ever agree to restrict the total or cumulative volume of advertising without a statutory requirement to do so. However, if a strengthened voluntary code is to be tried first, it is important that the Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency and consumer organisations have an input into drawing up the code: it should not be left to the food and advertising industries and Ofcom alone.
	The effectiveness of any voluntary agreement should be closely monitored for a limited period, with the clear understanding that regulation will follow as night after day it is not fully effective. The Department of Health has received the full report of the National Heart Forum, drawn up by Jane Landon, on policy options for food marketing to children, which I mentioned earlier. That report followed the forum's "young@heart" initiative, which was a life course approach to preventing coronary heart disease. The report explores in much greater detail all the issues over which I have skated and includes international comparisons.
	I hope that my noble friend will recommend that that thorough analysis reaches not only the Department of Health but all relevant government departments before any decisions are made. The report would also be useful to the House of Commons Health Select Committee, which is now approaching the end of its inquiry into obesity.
	The noble Baroness has raised a topic of great importance and urgency for the nation's future health. I very much hope that the Government will take heed of the warnings and useful suggestions that have already been made in the debate.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on instigating this important debate. She is a consistent supporter of the rights of children and this debate is more than anything else about our adult responsibility to ensure that children have every opportunity to grow up with good health, able to enjoy long, disease-free life without the stigma of obesity.
	I remind the House that obesity is not only a health problem. The charity Childline has listened to hundreds of children who are suffering from bullying simply because they are seen by their peers as fat. We know the implications of bullying for emotional growth.
	It is a shocking fact that the 2002 health survey for England found that 16 per cent of children between the ages of two and 15 are obese and 30 per cent are either overweight or obese. As we have heard, diet and nutrition are key factors in increasing the risk of cancer, stroke and coronary heart disease, as well as a number of other serious diseases. It is also known that obesity is associated with increased risk of mortality. In 2002, cases of mature onset diabetes in obese children were reported for the first time. The National Audit Office has projected that by 2010, one in four adults will be obese and the total cost to the National Health Service and economy will be about £3.6 billion.
	I declare an interest as a member of the board of the Food Standards Agency, which is currently considering ways to encourage children to eat a more healthy and balanced diet. In that context, the agency is also considering the role played by marketing and promotional activities in influencing what children eat.
	Previous stakeholder discussions on the issue have revealed polarised views. Many consumer groups oppose the concentration of advertising on foods high in fat, salt and sugars, and some support action to redress that balance. Among those are parents, who feel powerless in the face of large corporations. They cannot be expected to deal with that challenge alone. The National Family and Parenting Institute found that 84 per cent of parents felt that companies targeted their children too much and in that response there was a remarkable consistency across gender, social class, size of family and age of children. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Northbourne will say more about the work of that excellent organisation and its findings.
	Industry, meanwhile, doubts the ability of advertising to influence the balance of children's diets, and considers the decrease in children's physical activity to be the major contributing factor to obesity. There certainly needs to be action on both diet, or calories in, and activity, or energy out, although if I went up the tower at the pace suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I think I might have a heart attack.
	However, in the interests of children and the future health of the nation, to do nothing is simply not an option. In September, the Food Standards Agency published the results of a systematic review of the available evidence on the issue, the Hastings review, which has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, so I shall not repeat him. It concludes that advertising to children affects their preferences, purchase behaviour and consumption. Those effects are apparent not just for different brands but for different types of food.
	To follow the review through, the agency has held a meeting of academics to debate it, together with another research review produced by the industry on 31 October. The seminar, the peer review, supported the conclusions reached in the Hastings review. I assume that the debate will continue.
	The agency then published a paper that sets out a range of policy options to address all aspects of the marketing and promotion of food for children. The purpose of the paper is to provoke a wide-ranging discussion on the appropriate way forward. Although I admire the real passion of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, we must have research and reason if we are to win the debate.
	A stakeholder meeting was held in December to begin to consider how the issue might be taken forward. It identified four main strands for further work: composition and labelling of retail foods—people still do not know what is in the food that they have in their hand; broadcast advertising; consumer information; and provision of healthier options in food services. A large public meeting will be held in January to be attended by a wide-ranging audience to take those issues further. There will also be discussions at open meetings in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
	As the Minister knows, the agency board is due to discuss the issue in March 2004. It is anticipated that it will consider a wide range of policy options, which may be regulatory or voluntary, after which advice will be given to Ministers.
	In December, Tessa Jowell publicly called on the newly established Ofcom to review the rules covering food advertising on television. Ofcom's chief executive, Stephen Carter, responded with an open letter on Ofcom's website. Ofcom has committed itself to further research to help decide what action it considers necessary. That work will comprise further research into the impact of food advertising on children's diets; an examination of the context of both the FSA's report and the factors that have led to the issue being on the public agenda; and an independent assessment of the Hastings review. But does Ofcom really need to repeat all that work already carried out by the FSA and others?
	However, the industry is right in one area: this is not a one-issue problem; it is complex. There was a time when to be sent to your room was punishment; now, parents have told the National Family and Parenting Institute, it is hard to get them out. A 2002 survey by the Independent Television Commission revealed that, on average, each household has three television sets and that, on average, children aged four to 15 spend two hours 23 minutes watching television. Sustain estimates that 95 per cent of advertising during children's television programmes is for fatty, salty or sugary foods. Will the Minister think about what research might be carried out jointly by general government departments to take that work forward? Research on the influence of advertising is contested, but my question is: if it is not effective, why, in 2001, did food advertisers spend £161 million on selling chocolate and sweets in the UK, much of it directed at children?
	There is no doubt that the issue will need action on many fronts, and that departments and agencies, both statutory and non-governmental, must work together. The Food Standards Agency, the Department of Health and organisations such as the National Family and Parenting Institute need to work together with—dare I say it—industry in tackling the difficult problem. What are the Government doing to ensure that the many departments involved in this complex problem work together to a good solution?
	The Food Standards Agency is working on ways to encourage children to eat a healthier diet, including the promotion of novel ways to increase children's fruit and vegetable intake; for example, using the Bash Street Kids comic-strip characters and a "how to" guide on fruit tuck shops, an alternative to buns and biscuits. The agency is looking at the promotion of a healthy diet and activity through, for example, an interactive CD-ROM called "Dish it Up!" for 11 to 12 year-olds and a school lunch-time based nutrition and physical activity programme for seven to nine year-olds. It is also looking at the improved promotion of diet through peer education, because we know that children have much more influence on each other than we adults have on them.
	Many factors influence what children eat, or calories in, and the measure of exercise that they take, or energy out. It is also a result of changing behaviour. But we cannot condemn the next generation to poor health, if some of what we know can make a difference. It is the responsibility of us all to remember that to do nothing is not an option. Will the Minister outline the range of options that the Government intend to follow to ensure that children are protected from inappropriate direct marketing with all the problems that follow to their health and well-being?

Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she agree that the laudable efforts of the Food Standards Agency and others to improve children's diets and eating habits are virtually swamped by the huge expenditure of the advertising industry in promoting the wrong kind of diet?

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I thought that that was the general tenor of my remarks. I apologise if I lacked clarity. As noble Lords will gather, I am suffering from a cold, so perhaps I was not clear.

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for initiating this debate. Again like other noble Lords, I have read articles in preparation for the debate, most of which seem to concern children and food. So I, too, can throw statistics around like confetti; for example, that 60 per cent of children regularly eat crisps after school; 40 per cent eat biscuits; 30 per cent eat chocolate; and sales are predicted to rise by 20 per cent in the next four years. Or this: spending on advertising aimed at children rose sixfold in the years up to 1998. It was stated in the other place that on children's television a child is likely to see between six and 11 adverts every hour for food high in sugar, salt and fat. The more I read the statistics, the more my heart sank.
	I then read the ASA's own document, its code of practice—still more statistics. A snapshot survey carried out in July 2003 showed that the compliance rates for non-broadcasting adverts directed at children was 98 per cent. My heart lifted a little as I read the standards with which advertisers are required to comply; for example:
	"An advertisement should contain nothing that is likely to result in physical, mental or moral harm to children".
	I was reassured to know that compliance rates in the non-broadcasting world are so high. I have done all my background homework.
	However, I began to be troubled again, because none of the lobbying groups seemed to be getting to the core of the matter. Not one of them was challenging the assumption implicit in all this: that children, even the very young, are branded and defined simply and only as consumers. Not one of them asked whether that was an adequate definition of childhood. Not one asked whether that was what childhood was for.
	It would be fascinating to discover when the word "consumer" began to fashion the very ways in which we think, and when it entered our national vocabulary. My guess is that it came into prominence in the 1950s and 1960s. Gradually the stranglehold that that word now has on all aspects of society has tightened, and now even the smallest of children are defined by it.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, brought to our attention a quotation that I also discovered. It states:
	"The pre-school market is worth £4.3 billion per annum".
	I do not know how one could begin to create such a statistic, but the use of the word "market" is the giveaway. The youngest child is no longer a miracle, a gift or a source of wonder but is simply regarded as a consumer. I find that morally degrading, because it assumes that the child is nothing more than a manipulatable and voracious computerised dustbin.
	The problem that the debate has highlighted relates not simply to the physical, mental or emotional well-being of children, important though all those are. It actually relates to what we as a society think that childhood is for. I am much taken with the Swedish experience, which refers to the need for children to have safe zones in which they are protected from commercial influences. At least, that assumes that childhood has a kind of moral integrity as a stage in our human development that we, as adults, should have a duty to safeguard. I would go further and argue that childhood is also a place in which things of the spirit must be given room to grow. Of course, I would claim that all of us—children included—are made in the image of God.
	I am not defined by what I consume. I am defined—in my terms, at any rate—by my relationship with God and with my neighbour and by my destiny in God. Why are we, as adults in Britain today, so lacking in moral courage that we do not wish to protect children from exploitative and commercial pressure? Why are we so spiritually bereft as a nation that one third of parents provide a television set in the bedroom for the under-3s? I find that hauntingly sad.
	I warmly welcome the debate. At heart, it is about whether, as a nation, we are prepared to submit to a definition of childhood that sees children simply as consumers or whether we have the courage to say that childhood needs protection from exploitation because only in that way can the spiritual needs and rights of children be given a place to grow and flourish. We are in serious danger of producing a nation of fat and greedy children with thin and starving souls. Is that really the best that we, as adults, can do?

Lord Chan: My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Howe of Idlicote on securing this debate, which is of importance not only to children but to their families and communities. Noble Lords who have spoken have identified the main focus of direct marketing to children—food and drink. My concerns are focused on people who live in economically poor communities, in which marketing to children leads not only to bad health but to debt, further poverty and increasing crime.
	Marketing aimed directly at children has become more widespread and unavoidable with television being in all our homes and the computer becoming an essential tool for school homework. In many homes, the computer is part of the bedroom fixtures for children. We know that, through the Internet, children can be reached by people and organisations for good or ill.
	Television advertisements aimed at pre-school children are probably the most effective influence, as other noble Lords have said, on their choice of food and drink, as well as of clothes, toys and entertainment. In single-parent homes, television is used as a childcare tool because mother is too busy to give all her time to childcare. As a consequence, children watch advertisements repeatedly, remember the jingles and ask mother for the products promoted. At Christmas, parents, including single parents, feel obliged to spend hundreds of pounds that they do not have and can hardly afford to borrow to buy the latest computer games, scooters, shoes and other presents. Under such pressure, poorer families accumulate debt and suffer more stress.
	In economically poor areas of England, fast food outlets sell the cheapest meals. That is welcomed by families, but it restricts their choice of healthy food and leads to poor health. In addition, fast food outlets promise to give free toys with children's portions, and that too is welcomed. Parents with limited money go to the nearest supermarket to buy special food offers of two for the price of one. Such offers tend to be on less healthy products than we would otherwise buy. The adverse effects of unhealthy food on children are well known and have been rehearsed by other noble Lords. Among ethnic minorities, the ill effects include dental caries and gum disease, particularly in children from Chinese, Vietnamese, Bangladeshi and Pakistani families.
	Parents in our poorer housing estates also directly influence their children by smoking at home. Some break the law by asking children to buy cigarettes from corner shops. Sadly, such practices lead children to start smoking at an early age. Older children and teenagers can be influenced directly by pop music programmes and soap operas on television, and they assume that all popular and attractive young people wear designer clothes and shoes and use the latest mobile telephones, which receive computer and TV images. All such products are costly and add to the burden of financial debt for the family. In some poor housing estates where money is not available even through borrowing, children resort to bullying other children who are better off, theft from shops, breaking into cars and other crime.
	The most dangerous form of direct marketing to children in such deprived estates include adults and older children who peddle drugs outside schools and around their homes. Such activity is illegal, and police officers are assigned to tackle it using their crime prevention powers.
	In order to overcome the effects of harmful marketing to children, the Government must promote the marketing of healthy food and habits. That needs the co-operation of schools and would involve another look at how we use television, advertisements and public billboards. Public health leaflets that have attractive covers featuring popular actors and singers could be put through front doors by the local primary care trust. That was done by the PCT of which I am a non-executive director in Birkenhead and Wallasey. We used Catherine Zeta Jones on the front cover, and not only did everybody read the eight-page document but they asked for further copies. Instead of just banning food that leads to poor health, the advertising media should promote healthy alternatives, such as fruit and low fat, low sugar and low salt foods.
	In the communities to which I have alluded, neighbourhood regeneration needs to undergird all our attempts to overcome the difficulties of direct advertising to children. There should be playgrounds that are safe for children. They should not only have safe apparatus but also be places where children will be safe from adult predators. We need to have adult mentors who are prepared to organise and teach good quality skills, such as football. In Toxteth, Liverpool, former professional footballers, particularly from the local community, give their time to organise children and to teach football skills to children from poor housing estates. That has led to a number of children being recommended to join famous professional football clubs and, in turn, for them to promote healthy living.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on securing this debate. I also share many of the concerns about the plight of young people and, indeed, their parents in modern society. Where I think that I differ from previous speakers is in the assumption that the problems can be solved or even considerably reduced by further restrictions on advertising.
	We have always been a bit ambivalent about advertising in this country; for example, whether it is as to its cost effectiveness—I refer to the celebrated quotation made by Lord Leverhulme: "I think that half my money spent on advertising is wasted. The trouble is I don't know which half."; whether it is as to its importance when we find businesses in a recession cutting their advertising budget at precisely the time that one would think that they should be increasing it to stimulate demand; or whether it is as to its value. There is something ingrained in the British character—particularly, perhaps I may say, in the Scottish character—that there is a duty to create the perfect product, and the world would then beat a path to our door and purchase it. That was reinforced when we had an Empire and a captive market, which is why most of British manufacturing industry has now gone down the Swanee since we no longer have an Empire, but did not learn how to compete with others.
	Now, a question has been raised about almost the morality of advertising. My remarks are not designed to defend the advertising industry, although it is important to recognise that it is an important creative industry in this country, which is of international repute. We have very few industries that can claim that. Nor do I rise simply as someone involved in broadcasting to express concern about the loss of potential advertising revenue, particularly from children's programmes. It is worth pointing out that in Sweden, for example, where no advertising is permitted to children under 12 years old, the number of children's programmes produced is only five hours a week by the commercial sector, of which only two-and-a-half hours originate in Sweden. That contrasts with slightly more than 11 hours of children's programmes produced each week by ITV and 25 hours produced by Channel 5 in this country. Those are issues that need to be weighed in the balance.
	My reason for saying, "Think again before you assume that advertising or restrictions on advertising present a solution" is that it is a distraction from the main problem. Perhaps we may look at some of the problems afflicting young people today. Undoubtedly, the biggest problem is drugs. Do we have any advertising for drugs? We do not. Yet drugs are a huge problem among young people. Yesterday in the Scottish Parliament, figures were quoted as regards smoking: 27 per cent of girls aged 16 and 16 per cent of boys were already regular smokers. At that age, they cannot have seen an advert for smoking that does not immediately warn them that smoking kills or seriously injures their health. Yet the figures are still high.
	I turn now to sweets. My part of the world has a notorious sweet tooth. If UK consumption is 100 units, we are well up into the 120s/130s when it comes to consumption of chocolate, and so forth. But which country in Europe has the highest level of consumption of chocolate and sweets? It is Sweden, where no advertising whatever is allowed to children under 12 years old.
	I turn now to another example; that of the world of pop music. What produced the big upsurge in pop music in the late 1950s and early 1960s? It was not plugging on the BBC. The BBC still had the old Home and Light programmes. Indeed, it was so long before the BBC introduced Radio 1—I think it was not until about 1967—that it lost the market to pirate commercial radio, which eventually led to the introduction of official, regulated commercial radio in this country.
	My problem is that I do not think that restrictions on advertising present the solution. I was very much taken with the recognition of my noble friend Lord Rea of the number of times that we would all have to go to Canary Wharf to work off the effects of a Mars bar, but it is a fact that calorific intake in this country has gone down in the past decade. I appreciate that the problem is that we are not burning it off. It might be very nice, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, if we went back to two television channels. I would certainly settle for one radio channel, providing that it is mine. The problem is that we have got more than that and, regrettably, no one will ever say, "No. Let us get back to two or three". We are faced with problems, but we must do something to encourage children to take more exercise.
	I gather that it is a fact that the number of children between the ages of 5 and 10 undertaking any form of walking is down by 17 per cent since 1986. As regards 11 to 15 year-olds, the figure is down by 29 per cent. Only one-third of the children in this country takes the recommended two hours of exercise each week. It is all very well being nostalgic. I certainly took more than two hours exercise each week. We did not have a television, and the streets were safer to play in than they are now. There are huge problems, but do not let us imagine that advertising has caused them.
	The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was open enough to acknowledge the fast food of fish and chips. That antedates the arrival of advertising in this country. We all went for a fish supper. It was relatively cheap, fairly quick, saved parents time, cost a little money, and we all went for it. It had nothing to do with advertising.
	My concern is that we should not assume that this problem can be solved by blaming other people or the advertising industry. It must be solved by personal responsibility, which includes parents and schools. Otherwise, the problem will not be solved at all.

Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he realise that the figures he quoted as regards the calorie intake in this country going down are disputed? Many people believe that the official statistics which show that are incomplete and have not adequately taken into account food that is eaten outside the home.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, knows a great deal more about this subject than I do. I obviously accept what he says. But the very fact that no one is saying that the figure has gone up dramatically, and yet the problem of obesity has increased, indicates that it is not advertising that is causing the problem.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing this important subject for debate, and on the excellence of the speakers. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, that the Motion is targeted not against advertising but against marketing. Turning to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, which I admired very much, I was impressed by the statistics that he gave, as we all were. I wondered whether he would be able to work out what I should have to do to work off one of those wonderful cream cakes that I am always tempted by.
	I am always put at the end of the list. I think that is because I nearly always attempt to say something slightly different. On this occasion I plan to talk on this issue from the point of view of parents although I am not saying that previous speakers have not. I believe that when the Minister replies he will say, because it is government policy, that it is the responsibility of parents to say no to their children and to control their children's exposure to television and commercial pressures. I have no argument with that. However, it raises the issue of what the responsibilities of parents are in our society. Where is it written down and who decides? Is it just what the Government choose to say is the responsibility of parents? Are children taught in school of their responsibilities when they become parents? If not how can parents know what they must do? What responsibility does the state leave to them and more importantly how do they prepare to perform those duties?
	It is high time that this Government or some other one introduced a much clearer contract between parents, the state and other groups such as the extended family and community. Parents do not have a voice. The Government say that it is the responsibility of parents to address these issues. If there were a trade union for parents—I believe there ought to be—and if I were its general secretary, I should be saying to the Government:
	"All right. My members will take responsibility for looking after children in this way, but we want your help as follows".
	I would then list some of the things which the Government need to do to work with and support parents in fighting the battle against obesity in children and damaging marketing.
	The recent National Family and Parenting Institute MORI survey, to which many of your Lordships have referred, shows that a large majority of parents want to be good parents. We should remember that at all times. The vast majority of parents want to be good parents. They want to be responsible for their children's welfare and behaviour. Why do the Government not do more to support them in this task and to work in partnership with them to achieve the results we all want? The same MORI poll showed that a huge majority—some 84 per cent of parents surveyed—thought that commercial companies are targeting children too much.
	The skills of persuasion and marketing today have been refined and developed to such a degree as never before. Technology places very powerful tools in the hands of these persuaders. Those include the Internet and television. They invade the home like a kind of fairy godmother, sometimes beneficent, sometimes evil.
	The Government and some adults tend to say that parents should just say no. Parents do say no. They say no all the time. They have to say no much too often. Experts tell us that if we are to be good parents we should adopt positive parenting. We should say three good things for every time we say no to our children. That is all very well but with the advertising pressures of today, one has to say no about 27 times for every time one can say something good. It is not satisfactory. It is a conflict which in my view could and should be looked at very seriously.
	Parenting has never been so difficult as it is today. Traditional parenting patterns do not always work. A recent Mothercare survey showed that around 70 per cent of parents still rely for their parenting skills on instinct or on what they learnt from their mothers. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health issued a report about a year ago in which it was made absolutely clear that parenting skills applicable to our parents are not necessarily applicable to parenting today. Parents need education and support. That is working well where it is available but Parenting Forum, in which I declare an interest having been chairman for eight years, tells me that only about 25 per cent of potential demand is currently met.
	I ask noble Lords to listen to the voice of one parent. He or she was the subject of a parenting order. Having gone through the parenting course, that parent said this, "Why did they wait for my son to commit a crime before I was able to get the parenting advice and support I have been trying to get for years?" When will the Government adequately fund the delivery of affordable parenting education and support where and when it is needed by young parents?
	Having talked generally about parenting support, I should like to look at one or two areas in the context of marketing. There is the whole issue of education and advice for parents and the question of labelling on goods and control over children's use of television and the Internet. I should like, briefly, to say a word about each of those.
	Affordable education for parenthood should be available to every parent and prospective parent—within reason—where and when they want it. Where it is already available, it works. It is very popular. But no one should be excluded. I am sure the Minister will not know the answer to this question off the cuff, but how much are the Government currently spending on parenting education and support?
	I turn to the subject of advice. Goods in the food industry today are complex and the dietetic problems involved are not always simple. We have talked a great deal this afternoon about fats, salt and sugar. There are all sorts of other things that are not good for children's health. There may be foods that are good for another reason—perhaps because they introduce a balance of vitamins. It would be simple to have a voluntary registration scheme which would enable food manufacturers marketing goods to children to say they would like to have a particular food assessed. There would then be a kite mark—perhaps a figure of a child—in different colours. The simplest would be: green, jolly good; yellow, maybe and red, not on your life. It might be that one could not put the negative one for legal reasons but one could allow manufacturers to apply to a national body for a kite mark for their food if they believed it was reasonably healthy and wanted to sell it on that ticket.
	I turn now to the question of control of technology. There has been in existence a technology associated with what is called the Z chip or the J chip. This enables television sets to turn off at a certain hour, to accept only certain stations or to pick up signals which make them black out on material as it is broadcast. It is one thing to say to parents that it is their responsibility to see that children watch appropriate programmes for a reasonable period. It is much more difficult for a parent to do this. There is a statistic that the average household has three television sets. More than 60 per cent of children under 12 have a television set in their bedroom.
	One may say that it is foolish of parents to allow that, but if all your child's friends have one, it is extremely difficult not to do so. However, it is much better to say, "Yes, you may have a television, but when you reach the age of 10, you shall have one of these". That may or may not bring about a terrific row, but at least it will happen only the once. If it is a question of going into a child's room and turning off the television every evening—pulling out the plug and returning to find that the child has simply plugged it in again—that is the kind of thing which makes parenting difficult. The Government should put their shoulder to the research which will perfect the available technology so that this problem can be solved.
	I do not know whether comparable solutions are available for the Internet, but I strongly suspect that there are. Indeed, computers used in schools have modems which vet the sites to which the user may set up links.
	Finally, I want to say this. One of the reasons why many parents today have difficulty in setting boundaries for their children is that they lack the self-confidence to do so. They feel under attack. The Government, employers, marketers, restaurateurs and the general public often resent their children in public places. Parenting has never been so difficult.
	My noble friend Lady Howe remarked that the Government do not want to be seen as creating a nanny state. However, there is all the difference in the world between giving parents the help they want and behaving like a nanny. Parents need encouragement and support and, indeed, the vast majority of parents want that, provided that it is presented in the right way. The vast majority of parents love their children—most of the time—and want nothing more than to give them a good start in life.
	I believe that the Government should be working in partnership with parents rather than constantly patronising them. They should listen to parents. There is no formula in this country for listening to them, no organisation through which parents can speak to the Government except, possibly, the National Family and Parenting Institute. That organisation may be moving into the role with the establishment of Parentline; I hope that it does. We need a way in which the Government can consult parents and so that parents can have a voice. If parents feel that they are being treated as grown-ups, they are much more likely to behave like them. The Government have done that in the Sure Start programme, which is a rip-roaring success because they have worked with parents.
	I am running out of time so I end with a practical proposal. As a token of their real intent to work with parents, I suggest that instead of setting aside the frankly derisory sum of £25 million over three years for the parenting fund, the Government should make available 10 times that sum—£250 million—over the period. That would be a real gesture of confidence in the nation's parents.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on introducing a debate on a topic which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, remarked, is of great importance and urgency to the nation.
	As we know, we are all back in the House: Christmas is over and the new year sales are on. Consumer debt in this country has reached its highest level ever, while savings as a proportion of GDP are at their lowest ever level. Yet we congratulate ourselves on the rate of economic growth we have achieved as a result of the consumer boom over the past few months. We lord it over France and Germany because we are spending money which perhaps we do not have. The newspapers, television and even the Government encourage us to go on spending money. Saving is perhaps no longer seen to be a virtue. In any case, you could be cynical about saving if you have put your money into Equitable Life.
	Perhaps this is the age of instant gratification. Among the cuttings I have received, one mentioned the interesting speech broadcast last October on Channel 4 by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. It caused something of stir because he said:
	"What makes me wince, I suppose"—
	about the consumerism that is gripping society—
	"is the conscious targeting of young people—who don't actually have purchasing power themselves, but can use what advertisers call 'pester power' with parents—in a way which trains children into certain assumptions about what ought to make . . . their lives satisfactory".
	Too often these days, "I want" means "I get".
	Today we have questioned whether limitations should be put on the advertising of, in particular, food products to children. I shall return to that in a moment. However, a number of noble Lords have considered the problems surrounding the degree to which the state should regulate in this area. It took a long time to reach the decision not only to control but to eliminate tobacco advertising because ultimately we recognised that tobacco is addictive. I am not sure whether fast food is addictive. The legal suit being pursued against McDonald's in the United States is fascinating because it implies that fast food is addictive.
	We need to look at the situation we have now, where advertising is aimed at children. The advertisers tell us that a child of three years of age can distinguish between brand images. For example, it knows the difference between adverts for Coco Pops and McDonald's on television. Further, there are enormous peer group pressures on children. How many grandparents were asked this Christmas to provide a Playstation 2? How much does it cost? Over £200, which is an enormous sum.
	The Advertising Standards Authority tells us firmly that there is a clear code of practice in relation to children's advertising; that on the whole it is adhered to; and that where it is not, in those cases the appropriate people have been brought to book. Nevertheless, the issue of how people are being brought up in a consumer society is very real.
	I shall not repeat all the statistics already cited in our debate, but I wish to bring two sets to the attention of noble Lords. First, 24 million Britons are either overweight or obese. We have heard the statistics for children, which are terrifying, but it is worrying that 24 million people are overweight. Sir John Krebs reckons that, if we do nothing about obesity, within a few years it will cost the National Health Service £3.6 billion to deal with the health effects. I should have thought it would already be costing the NHS as much as that.
	In addition, we must face it that many families do not sit down together at mealtimes any longer. I was amused to learn that they graze from the fridge. Too often children help themselves to fast foods from the fridge. Food that needs to be heated is put in the microwave for three minutes. By then it is done and you do not have to worry about it. Thus the socialising effect referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is missing. Parents do not talk to their children.
	The Sure Start programme has emphasised how important it is that parents talk to their child. Some parents do not know naturally how to do that, just as some parents do not know naturally how to feed their children well.
	As well as the advertising aimed at young children on television, we have all the advertising that comes through schools—the sponsorship deals for computers and books in schools. We are told to "Shop at Tesco" or "Shop at Sainsbury's" and acquire a coupon. Without those promotions, many schools would be very short of computers, so I am quite pleased about such sponsorship deals. Whether it is right that Cadbury's should be sponsoring sports kit, or whether it is all so cynical, or whether Coca-Cola and Pepsi should install drink machines in schools, it is nevertheless vital that such sponsorship is regulated—perhaps we should have water rather than Coke and Pepsi machines.
	One can become cynical about why companies do such things, but would a ban work? We expect adults to discriminate, but if we banned advertising during children's TV programmes, advertisers could just switch to the adult programmes that children watch. We know that about 80 per cent of the audience of "Coronation Street", "Neighbours" and so on, are children. Advertisers would switch from one programme to another, and there may be a switch to other forms of advertising. We have not talked about the main form of advertising that children receive today, which is text messaging. It is more important to ban unsolicited advertising and e-mails to children through computers and text messages than carrying a ban on television too far.
	We also need to think more logically about the issue and put it into context, as suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Gordon and Lord Northbourne. I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his call for parenting initiatives. Parents should be encouraged to teach their children about dietary principles, for example. In Question Time today, we talked about salmon and the suggestion from America that the salmon we eat is contaminated. People react quickly to such issues. If we were to put more effort into informing people about what is a balanced diet, and the need to balance diet with exercise, perhaps that would help.
	I come back to the £3.6 billion that it costs the National Health Service annually. It would clearly be worth our while to spend 1 per cent of that each year—£36 million a year—on positive advertising. I think that it would be worth spending 10 per cent—£360 million a year—on positive advertising from the other side. By spending £360 million, we could save perhaps not the whole of the £3.6 billion, but quite a lot of it in time. It is important to make the Government recognise that. We know from the drink-driving campaign that such campaigns must be long term and that the message must be repeated again and again to get it through.
	What other suggestions can I make from the positive side? I am impressed that what I used to call a cookery class became home economics and is now called food technology. In classes on food technology, I understand that a great deal is taught on nutrition and dietetics to our 13 and 14-year-olds, most of whom regard it as being incredibly boring. The right time to get to people is when they are pregnant or have young children because that is when they want to know what to do. That is when we should be running classes about what is good or bad for us.
	What do the kids cook in class? I was rather shocked to discover from a friend that her daughter who was having cookery classes at school cooked baked beans on toast.

Earl Attlee: Gosh!

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, that takes us back to our youth.
	My friend's daughter also learnt how to cook popcorn. She was reprimanded for bringing in real apples to bake an apple pie instead of a tin of pureed apples. We could do rather more in cookery classes and teach how to cook from scratch, as the Americans say.
	We in Britain watch more television than people in most other countries of the world. The weather has something to do with that. But many kids are bored by adult TV. We need to provide alternative activities for some of our bored children. Youth clubs, and groups of scouts and guides are all old-fashioned and have gone down the spout. When such facilities are provided, they are attended. Our schools should be open every day until 10.30 in the evening. The kids should be able to use the computers because many of them do not have computers at home. There should be sporting activities so that they can get the exercise that they need. That would be a relatively small step. The facilities are there, but keeping them open requires the will to do so. Kids clubs and organisations such as Kidscape are emerging, but we need far more of them.
	We should not rush into being a nanny state. This is a cultural question. I do not want our society to go down the American route of blame and litigation. However, positive steps can be taken to counter the culture that has emerged to try to push it in a different direction. I want the Government to take the lead in such positive steps.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for introducing this important debate today. The Motion calls attention to the case for limiting the effects of marketing aimed directly at children. We all agree that children require a degree of protection, but views differ as to the extent to which they should be shielded from advertising, marketing and promotional offers.
	I fear that I may be a little on my own in this debate, with the notable exceptions of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and, possibly, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. However, it will be interesting to hear the Minister.
	Advertising and marketing are a feature of a free market economy where the consumer is king and where products and services compete to inform the consumer of their existence, and their benefits in contrast to other brands. In today's free market democracy, children and adults are surrounded by commercial messages. The codes governing advertising and marketing in both the broadcast media and the press have specific rules to take account of children's inexperience and credulity. Those codes are essential, and are supported by the public and industry. They are regularly reviewed to ensure that they are kept up to date with technological developments and changes in advertising and marketing practices.
	As we have heard, some countries, such as Sweden, do not allow advertising on television to children under 12. However, it is impossible to cocoon children from the commercial world in which we live. Shielding them from a part of those commercial messages will not work. We must also not forget that advertising helps to fund the free press, TV and radio broadcasting, and it can also provide funding and resources when they would otherwise not be available—for sporting events or for schools, for example.
	A much better solution is to teach children about the role of advertising and marketing practices, so that they learn about the intent and purposes of commercial messages and how to use them effectively. Educating children to understand the role of marketing is essential to the development of their ability to make critical comparisons and informed decisions, especially later in life. When they become adults, managing far greater financial resources, they will come under even greater pressure. The consequences of believing the contents of every advert offering a financial product could be devastating.
	Advertising slots around children's television programmes is currently an issue of some debate. Some argue that advertising should not be allowed around children's TV programmes because children are particularly vulnerable and open to influence. However, there is research which suggests that children understand the difference between advertising and programmes from a very early age and that they grasp the commercial intent of advertising from around five years old. Personally, I am not entirely convinced, and neither are many of your Lordships.
	The Food Standards Agency has recently published an analysis by Strathclyde University which concludes that advertising has a significant effect on what children want to eat or drink. But other research concludes that other factors, such as parents and siblings, have a much stronger influence on children than advertising.
	Many noble Lords have referred to the problem of carbonated sugar-laden drinks. It is a problem not easily solved by regulation, but I think there is a lot to be said for all schools providing a cold water drinks machine next to a fizzy drinks machine, if the school must have a fizzy drinks machine at all.
	The noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Gordon of Strathblane, talked about the requirement for exercise. For a variety of reasons, our children do not walk very far. They do not even spend much time outside in fresh air. Not only does this cause overweight and obesity, it may also explain why we are seeing more respiratory illnesses in children. They simply spend too much time indoors, so are exposed to the perils so ably identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe—a double whammy if ever there were one.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, talked about the work of the Food Standards Agency. We are lucky indeed to have the benefit of her experience in your Lordships' House. I think there is a problem of educating parents, but the parents most needing it may be the most difficult to contact, let alone influence. How depressing it is for me to see a mother going for a takeaway to feed her family. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, covered this point in detail.
	No doubt flexible working in order to support the 24-hour economy is having its impact on family feeding arrangements. This was a point well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans gave us a very strong moral perspective. He talked about the provision of TV sets to very young children. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, talked about access to TV and computers. He rightly said that both were seen as childcare tools.
	The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, followed the moral line of the right reverend Prelate. He first asked: what are the responsibilities of parents? He then covered the need for parenting support. The noble Lord made a suggestion about what he called a Kitemark, the symbol of the BSI. But I rather think that parents and children also need to understand the merits of fruit compared with chocolate. This goes right back to the noble Lord's original point.
	New primary legislation has been touched on by some noble Lords, notably a Private Member's Bill in another place proposed by Debra Shipley MP. I usually have an allergic reaction to any suggestion of further regulation.
	We on these Benches are opposed to the outright banning of advertising and marketing to children. There are strict rules in place to regulate marketing specific to children. We will look at the result of Ofcom's investigation into the current codes, but we suspect that there may not be much room to make them any tougher.
	We oppose a ban on advertising for the following reasons. We believe that obesity in children is caused by a number of factors, including an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, parental influence and diet choices. We do not believe that a ban would have the effect that many campaigners claim. However, I am certain that obesity is a major problem. The Chief Medical Officer is rightly extremely concerned about the future impact on the cost to the NHS, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. When I put my defence and security hat on, I am worried about the size of the pool of youngsters who will be fit enough to join the Armed Forces, even after extensive training.
	Countries such as Sweden have introduced such a ban and, as pointed out by noble Lords, have not seen any significant change in child obesity levels. Without complex regulations, a ban would prevent anyone advertising healthy food, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. I think it is unfortunate that the quality of fresh fruit in the UK leaves a lot to be desired.
	It is impossible effectively to define children's television and adult television. For example, "The Simpsons", "Hollyoaks" and "EastEnders"—I am not quite sure what these programmes are—would all be outside a ban on advertising in children's TV time, which is between 3.30 and 5.30 p.m., but all have a very significant children's audience. A ban would have a significant impact on the ability of broadcasters that rely on advertising revenue to offer children's programmes, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. Unlike cigarettes, which are harmful even in moderation, we do not believe that food can be so easily classified.
	I look forward to the Minister's response to this fascinating debate.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for introducing a debate that has been wide-ranging and most thought-provoking. It has covered some very interesting ground, from the narrowest of concerns about consumer behaviour to the real morality of the nature of society that we participate in and whether such consuming activity meets all the needs of our citizens. I hope I am able to join those who brought a perspective to our debate which looks at this issue from a moral standpoint.
	I pay due respect to the strong arguments that we need to recognise the nature of the problems which are provided by a young population—youngsters, in particular—who take too little exercise and are subject overmuch to the influence of television and other media through the computer. At the same time, I am afraid that I also agree with a great deal of what my noble friend Lord Gordon said; namely, that we should not look upon advertising as the all-powerful mechanism by which all tastes and consumption patterns are determined in our society, and that a simple ban—not, I hasten to add, that any ban would be simple—would not be readily effective in changing such patterns.
	I also want to develop the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was keen to emphasise. It is not a question of our young people being subject to these influences, but the fact that they are there, static, and responsive to these influences. It may be necessary to pay due regard to their future health problems by seeking to ensure that we have the requisite sport and exercise opportunities, which impact upon a number of departments.
	One point to which I am particularly responsive is that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, when she asked whether I would give some indication of co-ordinated activity on these issues between departments. I hope that in the deployment of my arguments in my short contribution, I will give evidence of the fact that we recognise that these issues go across government departments. We need a perspective which recognises the contributions of a range of government agencies. I hope that I am able to convince the House that the Government are acting in crucial areas in this respect.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, indicated, this country is deservedly regarded as a centre of advertising excellence in terms of quality and observance of high standards and integrity. That is entirely due to the effectiveness of the UK regime for regulating advertising and ensuring compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of regulations and codes of practice.
	Apart from statutory controls to protect consumers from misleading advertising, further independent controls are operated to ensure that advertisements are truthful, decent and honest and prepared with a due sense of responsibility to consumers and society. Both UK statutory and non-statutory controls are highly flexible and responsive. A single complaint will trigger action and there is no burden of proof on complainants.
	The UK advertising community demonstrates its commitments to high standards by operating its own pre-clearance service—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to in her opening remarks.
	We should recognise that the advertising industry is regulated. Reference was made to the efforts of my honourable friend in another place who introduced a 10-minute rule Bill—a Bill more for propaganda purposes than one likely to engage this House in a great deal of activity in the near future. But that Bill was extremely limited. It received considerable support, a recognition that our colleagues in the other place are also aware of the problems that have been rightly and accurately identified in our debate today. That Bill sought to ban the advertising of foods high in sugar, salt and fat during pre-school children's TV programmes. That is how limited its perspective was; that it was aimed at the most impressionable of young children.
	I had some sympathy with that Bill. But part of the solution must surely be to give our young people the skills and abilities to identify the hard and the soft sell. That may come through greater support from parents and the wisdom that they can impart through long years of wrestling with these issues. We must also bear in mind the aspects identified by the right reverend Prelate; that is, that we need to look at our children in a wider perspective than simply as consumers.
	Schools are concerned to give breadth to young people from the perspective of the broader educational objectives in which this crucial issue of media literacy exists. They want to give children the ability to understand the nature of the messages being sent out through the extremely powerful media which television and computers represent. They want them to have a rounded perspective which will give them the potential to respond to these issues with judgment and an ability to handle the various messages thrown at them.
	The only comment I would make to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who made a powerful speech on the dangers of the present pattern of consumption and the lack of exercise—I appreciate he identified certain food substances as having rather more powerful impact than others—is that there is a wide difference between foodstuffs and tobacco. We all know of the detrimental effects of tobacco.

Lord Addington: My Lords, the reason I mentioned tobacco was to emphasise the incompetent degree of lobbying that I received. I understand it is a different process. I simply say that there is an industry waiting to get in on the act. If we are not going to feed the lawyers, we must be ready for it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I was commenting on the obvious fact that however damaging certain foods may be if taken in abundance—we all know the detrimental health effects on people who have a poor diet—they are in a different world to that of tobacco. Therefore the arguments which obtain with regard to the necessity and success of withdrawing tobacco advertising from the media do not obtain to foodstuffs which at times people seem to suggest.
	On the more general issues, the question is how to encourage people to recognise that no one substance is detrimental; that the problem is achieving a balanced dietary approach. It is the educative aspects of our society that are important and ensuring that young people recognise that the over-consumption of certain foods is detrimental to their health. The Government can play a more significant role than simply placing restrictions on advertisements, as I indicated earlier, by improving media literacy; by being concerned that we educate our young people so that they have the perspective to make judgments about advertisements and the nature of selling that takes place in the media; but much more importantly, by addressing our minds to the fact that levels of participation in sport and exercise among young people are too low at the present time. They have been declining for a considerable time.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and apologise for intervening. However, will he please draw his remarks to the attention of his colleague in the education department?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord pre-empts me a little. I was coming on to exactly that point. As a result of a representation of joined-up thinking we currently have an initiative in place which involves the Secretary of State for Education—this must be a matter of great solace to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in the point he makes—and the Secretary of State for Health to tackle obesity in young children. That means we need within our school framework greater opportunities for exercise than obtain at present and aspects of the school curriculum need attention in those terms.
	I bear in mind also what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, rightly identified. This involves not just the school curriculum but also the opportunities for participation beyond the normal school day. We are keen to see how far we can extend educational facilities in the post-school hours. The noble Baroness will recognise the considerable efforts made by school governors these days to make their facilities more available, not just for their own students, but also as part of the community facilities. We need to encourage that in every way we can. That is why the Government absolutely insist that if any proposal comes before us with regard to the reduction of playing field opportunities and space, it is to be compensated for in adequate sporting facilities that at least match those which are being withdrawn.
	It is a simple fact that we are able to promote exercise and sport much more effectively in modern facilities than we ever could in our school sports fields which spent some months every year under water and in any case could probably only take 22 players over a period of one and a half hours—I speak as a sportsman who toiled away on many wet muddy playing fields and I have a great nostalgia for those days. With indoor facilities we can encourage participation at much greater levels than that.
	That needs to be encouraged. It means that schools need to pay greater attention to the question of exercise for young people. To that end the Government are putting £1 billion into sport for young people over the next two years, including 3,000 more sports coaches, 15,000 more sports teachers and 2,000 new facilities.
	We recognise that we need to look at the question of calories going in and the way in which calories can be burnt, and my noble friend Lord Rea was keen to emphasise this, although his specific illustration must have chilled almost everyone in this House. When he was talking about the chocolate bar, I thought that he was going to recommend to noble Lords that rather than taking the lift from the Ground Floor to the Principal Floor of the House we should walk up the stairs and burn off the requisite calories. When I discovered that he was talking about a building 600 feet high, I winced. But the evidence he gave was, of course, accurate. It is a lesson to us all that over-indulgence in certain foods is not easily remedied by casual exercise and a slight additional walk of 10 or 15 yards, or even 25 stairs or so. It requires a little more than that.
	There is no doubt that we need to address the issue of food in schools. Clearly schools have an important role to play, as eating habits are formed early in life. That is why my right honourable friend in the other place, Charles Clarke, is working with the Secretary of State for Health, John Reid, to develop an action plan that will set out to make healthy living a crucial part of school life. The Department for Education and Skills joint Food in Schools programme with the Department of Health covers what children learn in the classroom and what they eat during the day. They learn about diet, hygiene, nutrition and the benefits of healthy eating, while our nutritional standards set out what school meals should include.
	But for any of this to work, food manufacturers have to think about the role they play and how they promote their goods to children—which, after all, is the burden of the introduction to the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. As a nation we are rightly concerned about the growing issue of obesity. The Government are determined to take action but, to make a difference, we need food manufacturers and the advertising industry to work with us to ensure a healthier nation.
	As my noble friend Lord Gordon indicated, it may be that we cannot lay at the door of the advertising industry the accusation that the success of its persuasive techniques has transformed the dietary patterns of the nation. That is not so. It is the case, however, that food manufacturers would not invest the amount of money that they do in advertising if it was not efficacious to some degree. We want them to play their part in being efficacious in ensuring that we get good messages over to young people. Otherwise, against that background, our society is storing up for itself significant health problems in the future if the levels of obesity continue to develop at their present rate.
	The debate has focused overwhelmingly on young people, but let us not, from our rather more advanced and mature stage of life, exculpate ourselves from the situation. There have been one or two frank confessions today that we ourselves are not always mindful of good dietary practice. We all succumb from time to time to the lure of products that do not provide healthy eating but which are hugely delightful to partake of. We all recognise that it is not only children who are becoming more obese. As we broadcast our opinions to the nation with a view to ensuring that there is some degree of response, we should be aware of the lessons that they imply for ourselves. I say nothing against the excellent catering facilities of the House in making such remarks. Far from it. It may be because of their success that over-indulgence takes place from time to time.
	I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that we are concerned to improve the quality of media literacy within the framework of the school. We intend to ensure that children are better equipped to meet the challenges of the modern world in that respect. We also recognise that parents need support in these terms.
	The noble Lord brings to the debate his obvious commitment to the fact that the family is still by far the most important cultural unit in our society in determining perspectives and attitudes. In this respect, we need look not only at the child but also at the home background from which it comes.
	As noble Lords have indicated, sometimes the issue of poor diet is crucially related to a poverty of resources. It is a simple fact that better and more nutritional foodstuffs often are more expensive. That is why we need to look at the issue of poverty in our society and that is why the Government take pride in the fact that we have a programme for an effective challenge to the issue of child poverty. It is to be hoped that we have the basis for improving the diet of young people living under more deprived circumstances.
	As I mentioned initially, this country is deservedly regarded as a centre of advertising excellence in terms of quality and the observance of high standards of integrity. It has strict controls over advertising to children. Any further restrictions therefore need to be considered very carefully indeed.
	The Food Standard Agency's commissioned review of research into the effects of food promotion has clearly initiated a wide-ranging discussion on the appropriate way forward. It is consulting on the issues and options and we look forward to considering the results in due course. Through this work—the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, produced direct evidence of this—we are able to identify the crucial challenge presented by obesity among young people in our society. It is a challenge to which we need to respond across a range of government departments.
	The debate today has taken forward these issues in a substantial way. I hope that I have indicated in response that a number of government departments have recognised the priority of these issues and are committed to pursuing strategies to help tackle them.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, when I introduced the debate I said that I was looking forward to hearing your Lordships' contributions. It has been an extremely wide-ranging and interesting debate in which a great many expert suggestions as to the way forward were made. We are not yet on the road towards new legislation but the precautionary principle is definitely out there and needs to be noted.
	For me, the most important thing to come out of the debate was a recognition of the need to involve parents. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has been a champion in this area for many years. He is right on every occasion to involve a partnership with parents. In the same way, a partnership between government departments and a partnership with the food industry is also crucial.
	I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I particularly thank the Minister for his wide and comprehensive review and for indicating the Government's commitment in this area. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Business

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I have a short announcement to make. In the Division earlier today, the number of noble Lords voting "Not Content" should have been announced as 189.

Internet and Broadband Access

Lord St John of Bletso: rose to call attention to the measures which Her Majesty's Government are taking to promote affordable Internet broadband access throughout the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity today to bring to your Lordships' attention and to debate this topical and extremely important issue. There is no doubt that broadband access has the potential to provide major, far-reaching benefits to every echelon of our population, as well as to business, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who at such short notice have put down their names to speak in this debate.
	At the outset, I declare several interests. I was, until last year, the managing director of a large international ISP, providing Internet access to the corporate market. I am the chairman of the trustees of a UK charity, Citizens Online, which is an independent national charity committed to the objective of digital inclusion, universal access to the Internet, whether through narrow band or broadband, which partners with a number of leading UK companies and local government. This charity has for several years run projects throughout the country that demonstrate how digital inclusion can make a real and significant difference to disadvantaged communities.
	I was keen to raise this debate in your Lordships' House for three principal reasons. First, I wanted to recognise the achievements of both government and commercial, non-government organisations in extending the reach and take-up of broadband services already secured. In the same vein, I wanted to identify what I perceive as the major obstacles and challenges we face in order to extend the take-up of broadband over the next few months and years. Secondly, important as it is to discuss reach and take-up, I feel it is important that we help raise awareness of the many benefits of broadband services to both the public and the private sector. There still appears to be an enormous amount of naivety about the exact definition of broadband, high speed Internet access. Finally, as is stated in the wording of the Motion, I wanted to identify what existing and additional measures, both financial and logistic, Her Majesty's Government are taking specifically to promote affordable broadband access in all parts of the country, not simply in the major cities but also in the rural areas.
	At the outset, BT is to be commended for extending the reach of broadband services to cover, according to its most recent figures, 89 per cent of homes and businesses in the United Kingdom. There is no doubt, however, that to get from 89 per cent to 100 per cent coverage industry, government, regional development agencies, local councils and others will all need to join together in partnership and to adopt and to pursue a wide range of innovative strategies. Here I refer to the advances in satellite technology and wireless technologies.
	What alarms me is that, despite this high availability, this reach of 89 per cent, less than 10 per cent of the population has so far adopted broadband. While there continues to be a drive for 100 per cent broadband availability, and for a solution for the rural broadband issue, the key question is what will drive the take-up that will deliver the broadband revolution.
	Clearly, the joint challenge to industry and to the Government, including the regulators—here I refer to Ofcom—is to rectify this situation quickly and to optimise broadband's contribution to the UK economy. I was staggered by some statistics that I received this afternoon from the Centre for Economic and Business Research that claim that if business fully embraces broadband now, the benefits to the UK economy by 2007 could be an additional £13 billion. That is a substantial contribution.
	The poor take-up can partly be explained by a lack of appreciation of broadband services, rather than narrowband services, but the key barrier to mass-market adoption is price. Here I am referring not just to the monthly fees for broadband but also to set-up and migration fees, which are not very competitive with the rest of Europe. The average retail price for the standard consumer 512 kilobits per second broadband service is between £27 and £30 per month, which remains relatively high. It is fairly competitive with the rest of Europe, but it is comparatively high and can fall.
	Prices have been falling, but one way of reducing prices further would be to introduce more competition in the wholesale broadband market, which BT currently controls and has the lion's share. The move from British Telecom's IPStream only to the increasing availability of DataStream this year—I must apologise for technicalities, as I am sure that not many of your Lordships are that up to speed about DataStream and IPStream—should also provide greater competition in the broadband wholesale market. Wholesale competition, and particularly DataStream, will drive innovation and therefore lead to more competitive broadband products.
	BT currently charges ISPs a £50 set-up fee in addition to the monthly fees for broadband. Invariably, the ISPs swallow them, but effectively they pass on these fees to their customers in the form of inflated monthly fees. In contrast, comparing this to the rest of Europe, in Italy Telecom Italia has no levies for set-up and in Germany Deutsche Telekom even pays the ISPs 40 euros for every new broadband customer. If BT could reduce its set-up fees, it seems likely that the take-up of broadband services would be accelerated.
	Moving on to the challenge of making the wider UK population aware of the benefits of broadband, I commend the work being done by the Office of the e-Envoy, particularly its UK online annual report, which was recently published. The Broadband Stakeholder Group has also made major strides in promoting the take-up of broadband services and I understand that it will soon be publishing a comprehensive report to this end. I was also encouraged by the work of the regional development agencies in both improving the availability of broadband in their regions and promoting the awareness of its benefits to both the public and business. Have Her Majesty's Government any plans to increase the UK Broadband Fund, which is currently around £30 million, to promote more affordable access in rural areas?
	The Prime Minister has pledged that all schools will be connected to broadband by 2006. Can the Minister provide an indication of what percentage of schools—primary schools and secondary schools—currently have 2MG broadband connections? Some schools are already exploring how they may, with their 2MG ADSL connections, become local Internet service providers, even using wi-fi. Broadband can and should play a major part in e-learning, particularly in those parts of the United Kingdom where there is a shortage of teachers and schools. There is a raft of commendable e-learning initiatives, which can come to fruition and maturity only when there is a greater take-up of broadband access—not just access but take-up—across the UK. Also, e-learning is not just about children. It is about lifelong education and has huge benefits for the elderly.
	Of course, broadband is not just about ADSL. Other technologies, such as cable modems, wireless and satellite, all have the potential to provide fast and sophisticated access to the Internet and its services. Will the Minister elaborate on what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to promote wi-fi wireless across the UK? I appreciate that in many parts of the UK it is not economic for the commercial telephone companies to upgrade their telephone exchanges to broadband. The cost is in the region of £250,000 per exchange. What scope is there for government to assist in that endeavour of local loop-unbundling?
	My next point relates to the specific measures that Her Majesty's Government are taking to promote affordable broadband. We are all aware of the substantial sums that the Government received from the sale of the 3G licences only a few years ago, which almost crippled many of the telcos. It is to be hoped that more government funds will be pledged to the rollout of affordable broadband services, particularly in rural areas.
	I understand that the Government intend to spend £1 billion on broadband connectivity for the public sector between 2003 and 2006. Will the Minister elaborate on the workings of the broadband aggregation project, and explain what assistance is likely to be given to the private sector? Will he also tell us how that will benefit those members of society who are currently digitally excluded? I was interested in the report of the UK Broadband Task Force, Public Sector Funding for Broadband, which examined the application of broadband by the public sector and outlined details of the broadband aggregation project's objective of seeking to aggregate public sector demand for broadband at both regional and national level.
	The multi-faceted nature of the digital divide has been extensively discussed and debated, along with the motivations for tackling it as an urgent social inclusion issue. One area where the Government could help would be to extend the home computing initiative, which currently enables employers to lend PCs and peripheral PC equipment to their employees to increase household penetration rates. That tax-efficient scheme for households to acquire PCs does not currently include any tax breaks for broadband connectivity. Will the Government consider extending the home computing initiative to include broadband connectivity?
	It is furthermore crucial that the Government create a joined-up strategy for digital inclusion by creating a well resourced digital inclusion unit. That unit should support the co-ordinated working of all the initiatives, programmes and pilots relevant to the issue, such as e-learning, skills for life, community regeneration and other social inclusion activities.
	Although there are encouraging developments in the promotion of broadband throughout the UK, it seems highly unlikely that our Government will meet their declared target for the UK to be the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G8 by 2005. Will the Minister give us some indication of where we are today in terms of broadband adoption in the UK, in relation to the pricing of the other G7 countries as opposed to supply broadband coverage?
	It is true that the take-up of broadband services in the rest of Europe, like the UK, is relatively low, but for UK plc to benefit from the many economic advantages that broadband can bring to the UK economy, all steps must be taken to promote the take-up of broadband throughout the United Kingdom now. I have no doubt about the commitment of the Government but, as ever, actions will speak louder than words. I beg to move for Papers.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, on securing this important and timely debate. On 16 December last year, Oftel released its second consultation on the wholesale broadband access market review. Once Ofcom assumed its powers on 29 December, it formally endorsed the draft decisions outlined in the review.
	As the Government's 2005 targets loom, the review makes for worrying reading. Its essential message states the obvious. First, British Telecom has significant market power—SMP—within the sector. In turn, that encourages a supposition that the wholesale broadband access market is not effectively competitive. Secondly, current technological access alternatives to ADSL, such as satellite, wireless or cable, are not in a position to provide any competitive restraint on BT. Thirdly, that situation is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.
	That unnerving state of affairs is echoed by the comments of industry insiders. John Pluthero, whom I think is chief executive officer of Centrica, has said:
	"The market review says nothing new—as ever it's jam tomorrow. Four years on there is still no broadband revolution—instead we have one supplier, one product and one price. Tomorrow never comes—the broadband revolution is on hold until further notice".
	Eric Abensur, CEO of Freeserve, has said:
	"Without real competition to stimulate a major growth in demand, the Government's target of being the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005 is wide of the mark".
	That echoes the noble Lord's point. Inevitably, all that begs the question of what should be done to invigorate competition in the sector, and thereby not only make real progress towards the Government's 2005 targets, but increase affordability and widen consumer choice.
	The review is as good a place to start as any. It seems nonsense that, having concluded that there is no effective competition in the sector, the regulator should determine that the status quo—the existing retail-minus pricing methodology—should be retained. As a spokesman for the Broadband Industry Group observed:
	"The regulators have missed the opportunity to introduce cost plus pricing which would increase competition in the market and lower broadband prices for consumers. As a group, we are frustrated, but remain determined to secure a fair outcome for both consumers and business. We will continue to campaign for 'cost-plus' pricing and greater competition in the UK broadband market".
	There is a widely held view that the move to cost-plus pricing, as a means to achieve appropriate price reductions in broadband product and stimulate real competition, is long overdue. Accordingly, I very much hope that both the regulator and the Government have such a move firmly in their sights. Indeed, I invite it.
	The Minister will be aware that, via the medium of Questions for Written Answer, I have been pursuing other aspects of the pricing structure for wholesale broadband. In particular, I have asked about activation fees, but also migration fees, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St John, and other aspects of the issue. To quote directly from one of the Minister's Answers to me, I note his premise that:
	"The broadband market must necessarily be market driven".
	Moreover, it is essentially accurate to say that:
	"Competition is fostering innovative pricing—such as the free activation offer".
	Indeed, it would be churlish not to admit that, since the start of 2002, progress has been made in reducing retail prices for broadband. However, at the same time we have to be mindful that, as the review makes plain, it is happening within the context of BT's SMP status. In terms, BT has a considerable and, in current circumstances, unassailable edge over its competitors. I cannot help feeling that some redress in respect of the activation-fee issue—perhaps even the migration-fee issue—would assist. Indeed, I draw some comfort from the Minister's statement that:
	"The independent regulator Ofcom, has the power to intervene if they feel prices are being maintained artificially high".—[Official Report, 5/1/04; col. WA 26.]
	To that extent I hope that, as Ofcom conducts its imminent strategic review of the whole UK telecommunications sector, it will take a very close look at that sort of issue. Moreover, I trust that the Minister will offer the Government's twopennyworth on the matter.
	It could be argued that broadband is languishing in a chicken and egg situation—and has been for a number of years. Undoubtedly getting its pricing structure right would act as an important driver for take-up. But it is a moot point that that can be achieved all the time that the market is not effectively competitive. Moves to create an appropriate pricing structure are inevitably subject to the prevailing lack of competition, rather than being geared towards achieving a natural level as a matter of course. So, while I do not dissent from the proposition that broadband product should be market-driven, I also believe there is a strong case for more proactive involvement in competition issues in the sector, if not directly from the Government, certainly from Ofcom, more probably both. Altroconsumo, the Italian equivalent of the Consumers' Association, has said that it is:
	"convinced that, in particular at this initial stage, a good structuring and functioning of a competitive market in broadband has to be deemed more important than the possibility to have lower prices for the moment."
	I admit that something there may have been lost in translation, but I am bound to say that I have some sympathy for that view.
	Of course pricing—that is, affordability—is a significant barrier to take-up of broadband services by the consumer. In the context of workable technological solutions, that is particularly the case in respect of the growing digital divide between urban and rural areas. As an aside and to put flesh on some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord St John, it is worth bearing in mind that a number of other barriers, based on the age of the potential users, their level of income and, indeed, their motivation, are also important. In other words, we should not lose sight of the fact that it would be erroneous to assume that the establishment of a fully competitive market would, necessarily and as a matter of course, give rise to universal broadband access.
	Moreover, in assessing the Government's and the market's progress towards,
	"affordable internet broadband access throughout the United Kingdom",
	it is important to draw the distinction between availability and take-up—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord St John. I have a constant battle trying to decipher and interpret the statistics. It is accurate to say that, as of 12 January this year, 2,146 of BT's UK exchanges out of a total, as I understand it, of 5,500—that is, significantly less than half—had been ADSL-enabled, covering 85 per cent of UK households. In addition BT has set trigger levels for a number of remaining exchanges which, if activated, would cover 99 per cent of households.
	On the face of it, the prospect of 99 per cent coverage is marvellous; and yet the statistic is illusory, if not deceptive. In the first place, to state the obvious, coverage is not the same as take-up. The figure also has to be seen within the context of the digital divide. The vast majority of urban areas have full accessibility to broadband, whereas in rural areas, where demand for broadband product is much stronger, accessibility levels, according to anecdotal evidence, are running at only 30 per cent. The resolution of that imbalance should be an urgent priority for both Ofcom and the Government.
	In respect of the distinction to be drawn between coverage and take-up, I return to one of my hobby-horses, already mentioned by the noble Lord, St John. Your Lordships may recall that, for some time, I have been nagging away at the issue of what constitutes a proper definition of broadband. The simple fact is that the Government's figures for take-up include connections operating at 128kbps; that is, data transfer speeds operating at approximately double a standard dial-up connection. Yet most people, even the regulator itself, regard "true" broadband as services offering data transfer speeds in excess of 500kbps. That is important for a variety of reasons. First, it is extraordinarily difficult to know how reliable the statistics are. For example, as the Minister will be aware as a result of some of my Questions for Written Answer, the World Economic Forum's global information technology report placed the UK eighth in the rankings in terms of competition in the ISP market and 67th the affordability of Internet access. As the Minister stated in his Answer to me:
	"the findings . . . appear to be very much at odds with those of the more regular and focused Oftel benchmarking".—[Official Report, 5/1/04; col. WA25.]
	I will say! My supposition is that the discrepancy arises at least in part because of different interpretations as to what constitutes broadband—case of apples and pears. But the important point remains; namely, that, on measures of what most people would define as true broadband, UK performance is not as glorious as is implied by the statistics that we generally use.
	There is another important point. Quite rightly, the Government perceive broadband to be a hugely important driver of both public service reform as well as a mechanism to:
	"facilitate the next phase of e-commerce".
	The investment of funds, as with for example the NHS national IT plan, is massive and, so far as I can tell, at the heart of the thinking underpinning the policy is a recognised requirement to transfer very large data files, such as X-rays and so on, via the Internet.
	The problem is that data transfer speeds of anything less than 500kbps would not necessarily constitute the necessary step change from existing dial-up connections. They could even prove to be counter-productive, if not short-sighted, in the sense that users would be placed in a position where the benefits of true high-speed data transfer would not be readily apparent. In effect, using 128kbps as a bare minimum of broadband definition imposes an artificial constraint on the proper development and deployment of "true" broadband. To be fair, I have it in mind that the Government, in rolling out broadband to the education sector, are insisting on a bare minimum of 2mbps. That is all good and well. None the less, it contrasts starkly with the concurrent insistence that 128kbps is adequate for broadband in other situations.
	I would not like the Minister, to imagine that I have been unduly critical. There are encouraging elements in some of their approaches to broadband. I am aware of recent developments such as Ofcom's decision to open up the 5.8 gigahertz band to wireless service providers. That should facilitate the deployment of broadband, particularly in rural areas. As the Minister, Stephen Timms, has said:
	"there will be cases where the market will not deliver and targeted support may well be needed. Where the lack of broadband availability is a limiting factor in economic regeneration, that can be a justification for using existing funds for regional economic development".
	That is a very welcome policy stance, albeit its virtue is dependent upon appropriate action being taken. Happily, like the noble Lord, Lord St John, I can extol the merits of the DTI's broadband aggregation project as a potential means of filling some of the gaps in broadband availability. Indeed, in that context, I have been very impressed by the Anglesey Connected programme and the imaginative way in which it has been used to extend the reach of broadband and the potential use of "piggy-backing" in that part of Wales. The key point is that, as BT has observed, the Government have to be seen to be utilising broadband capabilities, if at all possible in partnership with local communities and the private sector, in their own delivery of services. That would do a great deal to unlock both availability and take-up.
	In conclusion, it is inevitable that we measure broadband against the Government's stated targets. The year 2005 is not that far away and I have growing doubts that the UK will be the most competitive and most extensive broadband market in the G7, or that all government services will be online by that deadline. Certainly, both the Government and Ofcom have their work cut out if they are to deliver. Be that as it may and as I hope I have made plain, there is much both of them could be doing if they had the will to bring achievement of the targets closer. I very much hope they will grasp the nettle and push the broadband agenda forwards.

Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for introducing the debate. I speak only as a layman and not as a competent user. In making my remarks today, I am indebted to Dr Charles Trotman of the Country Land and Business Association, which continues to campaign vigorously for the faster rollout of broadband in rural areas.
	It is true that broadband has been a success story in bringing about a step-change in technological advancement in communications. From an initially slow start, the United Kingdom has made tremendous strides in catching up. BT broadband now covers 80 per cent of the country and within Europe the UK network is second only to Germany.
	However, that is so only because of the UK's relative urban predominance. In order to ensure that the enabling of exchanges is cost-effective, BT has introduced a pre-registration system which allows it to register the level of interest in broadband in a particular locality. Trigger levels are set for each exchange, which means that there must be a certain number of requests for broadband before an exchange can be enabled. If the trigger level is not reached, BT will not enable the exchange. That means that businesses which clearly need broadband will have to consider a more expensive option because either the trigger level cannot be reached or no trigger level has been set.
	In evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee inquiry in the other place in July 2003 into rural broadband, the CLA called for all exchanges to have trigger levels set. This was adopted by the Select Committee in its first recommendation of the report.
	Of the 5,500 total exchanges, some 3,200 are located in rural areas. BT has set trigger levels for more than 2,600 exchanges and has said that in November it will set levels for a further 2,300. That means that 80 per cent of rural exchanges will have trigger levels set and take the UK to some 90 per cent coverage.
	There are three key areas in which broadband is essential to the economic prosperity in rural Britain: food and farming; rural business; and the rural communities. Twenty-five per cent of unemployment is in rural areas. Agriculture remains in a perilous state. Figures from Defra illustrate this with more than 5,000 jobs lost during the past 12 months, despite the increase in incomes. The rural economy needs to diversify away from its dependence on farming and tourism. Access to broadband is key to the economic development of rural areas and it is essential to avoid an urban/rural divide over broadband access as the activities of small businesses can be transformed by this advancement. Rural areas need to become part of any technological framework to help them to adapt to change. Lack of access to broadband is not a sacrifice that can be made.
	Although the take-up of broadband has been some 10 to 12 per cent in urban areas, the likelihood is that this uptake will be some 25 to 30 per cent in rural areas. The real barrier of high cost in rural areas has to be overcome. Some of the constraints are technological in that the remote areas are physically outside the six kilometre radius to be linked on ADSL. I understand that some 13 per cent of businesses are outside this six kilometre radius. Realistically for the last 10 per cent, the choice is between additional public funds—for example, from regional development agencies—to extend BT's reach, or for waiting for new entrants to meet what demand there is—for example, lease lines and satellite. However, these have technological disadvantages.
	BT has no intention of rolling out ADSL to all rural areas. It is unhelpful to raise the hopes of rural businesses in areas where there is no intention of enabling exchanges to provide ADSL, or where the reaching of trigger levels is so far off as to be impossible to establish any certainty. This means that rural businesses are not able to take sensible commercial decisions.
	Given the Government's commitment to have broadband connections to every school and doctor's surgery by 2006, and that many of these are outside the six kilometre radius, can the Minister confirm how this will be achieved? To borrow the analogy of North Sea gas, we were all promised that we would be linked up to a cheaper national grid. Well, several areas, including my own in south Cheshire, are still waiting. Can the Minister confirm the commitment and confirm the money the e-commerce Minister in the other place has committed—some £1 billion for broadband connection—and that this will be sufficient?
	What happens where a village school is too far away from an exchange to benefit from affordable broadband? If a school is in an area where broadband is not commercially viable, will the Government install a private line to the school? Despite the Government's willingness to allow piggy-backing, I understand that cannot be done on a dedicated line. In effect, the Government will be putting in place a private network for a public-sector body which will not allow private business access, thereby denying access to affordable broadband.
	According to BT, more than 70 per cent of the population in the north-west has access to broadband, covering some 800 schools and more than 250 libraries. In Cheshire, the area was given a recent boost with £3.7 million from the North West Development Agency. This was to assist up to 350 small and medium-sized enterprises with broadband access and a further 2,750 businesses with broadband advice. This funding will also help to extend the availability of broadband across rural parts of Cheshire, as well as to provide two mobile broadband demonstration units. I can report that in Cheshire, of 470 exchanges 228 have been enabled, with 132 having had trigger levels set. But as many as 23 will not have trigger levels set. My own exchange of Audlem is on the verge of being enabled, having attained 283 requests towards a trigger level of 300.
	On the role that the Government can play in the roll-out of broadband, it is recognised that they are also a big customer because of the IT demands of the public services. The CLA has called for rural businesses to be able to piggy-back on the public broadband infrastructure in order to reduce the costs of purchasing backhaul—that is, broadband capacity. Under the Government's public aggregation project, regional aggregation bodies have been set up and located in each of the nine English regions to bring about public sector demand for broadband. I understand that the Government will purchase backhaul to an exchange where this is feasible to provide broadband for the public sector. Can the Minister confirm that enough will be purchased at a significantly reduced rate to make piggy-backing economically viable? Can he also confirm that state-aid regulation does not apply to this purchase?
	I understand that the CLA has been informed by the DTI that the East Midlands Regional Development Agency will be used as a pathfinder for other RDAs and RABs. I also understand that one plan under discussion is the creation of a small exchange set-up in the black holes that exist beyond the six kilometre radius. Will the Minister comment on that, as it seems an ingenious answer to bring broadband to all areas? Has EMDA's plan finally been agreed with government? Will RABs be permitted to act unilaterally rather than under an agreed uniform approach? Does this mean that the Government's projected timetable of broadband roll-out will now be met?
	These comments clearly suggest that there are still some significant problems. For many in the rural economy, the roll-out of affordable broadband is too slow. All types of broadband have their downsides. ADSL, for example, is unlikely to be available across the country as the economics do not make sense and satellite has disadvantages in terms of cost, adverse weather and latency. It remains essential that rural businesses know all the available options where broadband can made a difference. Farmers are now diversifying into other income areas such as online marketing, farm guides and trails as well as farm tourism and bed and breakfast. It is clear that rural business is unable to compete because of the failure to access broadband. Relocation is often not an option and development will take the by-pass, an example of rural exclusion. If rural business had access to affordable broadband it would speed up the whole value chain and allow rural businesses to exploit opportunities and help the market to work, re-connecting town and country, producers and consumers.
	The community is the hub of the rural economy and it is at the heart of the countryside. Its vibrancy reflects the health of the rural economy. Your Lordships debated the setting up of community interest companies last week. These companies may well be the chosen vehicle to maintain rural shops in isolated villages and will look to the help which affordable broadband will bring them. The rural pub and post office can deliver other services via broadband thus increasing turnover for survival as well as providing a vital resource for the community. The very presence of broadband in the rural community can establish a gateway, a form of M25, where, once established, it will be very quickly used.
	The Government must move quickly to offer all their services on-line, especially those directed at rural communities. This in turn will also stimulate demand and encourage take-up. Let us not miss this opportunity.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord St John of Bletso for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter tonight. It is a very important subject because its scale has increased enormously over the past few years. In 2001, about 250,000 people were using broadband in the United Kingdom. Last year there were 3 million and the figure is growing. Although people seem to be worried about the take-up, we shall be facing very wide usage over the next few years. One needs it to do business in the modern world, and that is the bottom line. If one does not have high speed communications one cannot spread information or receive it rapidly enough to be effective. If it is too time-consuming one wastes a lot of time twiddling thumbs waiting for information to arrive over the communications link.
	It has become not a like-to-have issue, but a must-have for business. Very often BT and various others who worry about take-up are trying to consider everyone having it. For them it is still a like-to-have. The reason for that is the expense in many cases. That is why the point made by my noble friend Lord St John of Bletso about cost is the key to the whole issue. People speak of social exclusion but there is economic exclusion. If people cannot afford it they will not take it up.
	For many people the must-have is the mobile telephone, which is very expensive to run when compared to landline services in the past. There are many other priorities, possibly satellite television, which seems to be a great priority with my son who spends a lot of time watching sport. The priorities lie elsewhere. Broadband will come and people will put up with a lot of delay. When the pricing is right or people are making enough money, it will become the next must-have followed by the take-up, if it is available, which is the next matter to which one comes .
	As regards costs, from the point of view of small and medium size enterprises one must have costs which are within the reach of everyone. When a small business starts up it may comprise just one or two persons. Every cost matters because even if the new concern is financed by the Prince's Trust, for example, or anyone else, it is not dolled out huge amounts of money. The new concern does not want to go further into debt in order to have something that is a must-have for business.
	It is interesting that the Traffic Management Bill may have some effect on this. That Bill is about digging up the highways. I am warned that we could end up with a situation where the highways authorities favour themselves. There are also problems of competition which could favour BT as it already has quite a significant infrastructure under the roads. We could prevent new people coming into the market because they do not receive permission or are charged far too much for laying their cable in order to provide the service to the end user. I shall return to traffic later.
	Ultimately, the question is availability. My experience in trying to get ADSL so that I could join the parliamentary VPM and therefore gain access to the parliamentary system at home was very interesting. I dialled into BT to find out whether I could receive it on my home phone number. At first it could not be done, but then BT enabled the local exchange for ADSL and I was told that I was 6.5 kilometres away and could not receive the service. I am about 3.5 kilometres away as the crow flies so I raised an objection, particularly as I discovered that a house 100 yards could receive it through including its telephone number. BT said that I was definitely too far away. I asked the location exchange but they could not help me. The good news is that I now seem to have moved within the 6.5 kilometre distance and I shall be offered broadband after all. Whether the house or the exchange moved I am not sure.
	That experience highlights some of the problems of joining the service. I was very reassured by the briefing paper for this debate which states that there are initiatives in progress that could bring ADSL to 99 per cent of the people. I suspect that a good deal of that is because of the highly successful partnerships it has at county level and with other council and local government organisations.
	What worried me was the caveat "could". It could mean that if the initiatives are not progressed by other people it will not happen. There is the satellite system as well, but it has disadvantages. It is the answer for some people when no other service can be provided.
	A paper was produced by the broadband stakeholders' group, which has been discussing these issues in great depth. One of the points it made was that wireless technology is probably going to have the biggest impact on extending coverage and in enhancing competition. There does not have to be a wire link. There is a huge future for that provision. But we must have regard for the small players. One particular company has just taken up 14 wireless licences. There are others who are very small players in the market who need to be encouraged. We need infrastructure competition in order for the system to work. That is one of the challenges for the future.
	We speak about the current broadband and everyone is worried about joining it. But the type of broadband that we are talking about rolling out is not very fast. When one considers the potential contention rates on a 512 ADSL line, it could be that one is slowed up almost to the speeds of narrowband. There is going to be a demand for better service levels. With faster speeds people will need more band width. That will require public sector funding or one will have to offer private people a proper return on investment.
	We do not need a repeat of the stand-off between the Government and BT. The Government said that we would all be enabled by 2005 and BT could see lots of money on the horizon. It said that it was too expensive and there was a stand-off while it was decided who would pay. That is why we have the terrible catch-up situation now. The role of Ofcom in this matter will be very important. I have noticed that it is already becoming over-tasked and I do not want to present it with another task. I flag up its role as important.
	I have become interested in connecting with wireless. How does one find a connection? In that regard the partnerships have huge potential. The DTI's broadband aggregation project is a very good idea. The noble Lord, Lord Granchester, spoke about whether we could piggy-back on public service connections. I do not see why not. I believe that that should be a requirement. I hope that it will be very easy for the ordinary citizen to find out what is available, to benefit from it and to ride on the back of all the public money which is being put into connectivity for surgeries and schools.
	We are also trying to get business going, because at the end of the day it is the small businesses which pay. Sometimes people in government forget that they are funded out of taxation. Businesses and their employees pay the taxes. Large companies are down-sizing and trying to become more efficient most of the time. Growth in the future is in the SMEs and the micro-businesses, the 3.8 million which employ 50 people or fewer. Over 2 million of them have five people or fewer. That is where future innovation and growth lies and those people need access to new technology in order to grow and become global. One can have a global business with one person. I have a business in America which I run via the Internet. One does not need to have a vast organisation. We must remember that those are the people who will be paying the tax that keeps us sitting here and keeps all those regulators and such people in jobs.
	Finally, I turn to possibilities for the future, because it is nice to look forward positively. One great thing about broadband, because it is, or can be, an always-on connection, is the opportunity that it gives for peer-to-peer networking—that should appeal to the House. There is grid computing. Oxford University presently has a grid project out searching for a cancer cure, because thousands of small computers out there can all add up to a massive amount of data analysis and number-crunching capability.
	Someone estimated that 10 billion megahertz of processing power is sitting out there on the Internet for potential use. We need broadband to connect it up. We could use that for large projects for the greater public benefit at little cost. That could reduce research costs and other things.
	There are environmental gains to be had from that. The Traffic Management Bill is aimed at reducing congestion. We can reduce congestion by using high-speed Internet links. When you are trying to discuss business, you need eyeball-to-eyeball contact with people. It is all very well just talking on the telephone, but eyeballing someone is useful. With high-speed connection, someone can appear to be sitting in front of you and you can have a conference remotely. Teleworking can reduce congestion—I notice that the RAC and the teleworking group thought that it could cut commuter traffic by 10 per cent by 2005—but we must have high-speed access for that.
	That will also have an impact on planning policy, use of domestic property to run businesses, and all sorts of such things. Many policy issues involved need to be considered at some stage. However, equally, we do not want to slow the process by waiting for someone to produce a policy document on it; we just need to get on with it, so that people can build properly for the future.
	My message is that if we are to be the country in the G7 best equipped to carry on e-enabled commerce by 2005, we need to encourage and envision that future now.

Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, in raising the issue of broadband access and thank him for his excellent introduction to the debate. As the last speaker before the Front Benchers wind up the debate, I am struck that this 21st century subject has so far attracted as speakers only hereditary Peers—whether elected or otherwise recycled, like myself.
	Perhaps Tim Berners-Lee, the progenitor of the Internet who was so deservedly awarded a knighthood in the New Year's Honours List, already secretly enjoyed a far older title as the 18th Earl of Broadband. Vice-President Al Gore was unsuccessful in persuading the world that he was the inventor of the Internet. Perhaps we should take another tack and claim the true inventor of the Internet as a long-standing hereditary parliamentarian and politician.
	I declare an interest, as disclosed in the Register of Members' Interests, as a director of several companies whose primary business relates to the Internet. A few years ago, the remarkable Dr Andy Grove, chairman of the Intel semi-conductor group, said:
	"Soon we won't talk about investing in internet companies; we will just invest in companies, almost all of which will rely to some extent or another on the internet for their operations".
	That was an unerringly accurate prediction, so in declaring my interest, I feel that I am in the same position as almost every businessman—even every consumer. Even someone who does not themselves use a home computer or the Internet will benefit indirectly from the rapid deployment and take-up of broadband connections, whether through improved deliveries to their local shop or enhanced access to information, data and records by their local hospital, as the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, described.
	Other noble Lords have already comprehensively spelt out why broadband connections and the resulting fast Internet services are so desirable both socially and economically. They can improve the service and simultaneously lower the cost compared to narrowband and provide far richer content for consumers in education and business. Home shopping is not just a convenience for busy professionals or a boon to the collectors of the obscure but can be a Godsend to the disabled.
	The Motion concerns the Government's measures to promote affordable Internet broadband access. Earlier speakers have fully covered that—in particular the needs of rural and more remote areas. I shall therefore briefly consider the issue from a slightly different perspective—both a broader view of broadband, as it does not concern only the Internet; and the provision of broadband infrastructure from a macro-market point of view rather than from that of the regional and rural challenges on which the previous two speakers, in particular, concentrated. Clearly, in theory, the stronger the overall market, the more it should encourage networks and service providers to cover areas that they might otherwise deem to be uneconomic; and the less, therefore, the initiatives that we have discussed may be needed.
	In reality, I have no doubt that we need all the help we can get to create broadband Britain as quickly as possible—both strong regional and rural initiatives and a powerful engine in the overall market. Broadband can deliver not just fast and always-on Internet services but digital television channels and video on demand simultaneously with a fast Internet connection on the same line. Although that currently requires greater bandwidth than the 512 kilobits per second that represents the standard adopted by BT for fast Internet, that is not a fundamental difference. The ADSL technology and modems are the same to provide speeds of 2 megabits per second or higher, which is what is needed for full-screen digital television pictures.
	The only real difference is that there is a slightly greater sensitivity to the distance between the telephone exchange and the home to which the service is delivered. Even taking that into account, 90 per cent of homes can receive that level of bandwidth through the deployment of ADSL on BT's network and the constant development of compression technology is in any case decreasing the bandwidth needed for video on demand and digital television services. The masterly analysis of bandwidth issues of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, is highly relevant here.
	Why is the matter important? Yes, it is nice as a consumer to have those enhanced services. Yes, there are enormous opportunities for schools and universities to benefit from programming delivered on demand by broadband. But, most importantly, it is those richer and more popular content services that will drive take-up of broadband connections—almost as much as the reduction in price emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord St John. Indeed, increased take-up will in itself probably be the most important factor in driving prices lower, over and above the ability to spread the cost of broadband connections across a greater number of services.
	The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, spoke for every service provider's frustration in his dissection of the performance of BT. I was interested to read in BT's briefing notes that it emphasises the competitiveness of the UK market. Methinks it doth protest too much. As the noble Earl reminded us, there is an effective overwhelming monopoly exercised by BT in providing broadband services over its network and a dominant overall position, even after taking into account the position of the cable operators.
	De mortuis, nil nisi bonum, but it is impossible not to conclude that the recently deceased Oftel's implementation of local loop unbundling was a disastrous non-event. We have suffered the worst of both worlds: no effective competition; and a deeply risk-averse monopolist that has moved forward at a painfully slow pace. At least in other markets, such as Germany, where competitive initiatives such as local loop unbundling have also failed—some years before Oftel designed the system introduced in this country—there has at least been a dominant player that, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, recounted, has driven take-up through aggressive pricing.
	In respect of non-Internet broadband services such as digital television and video on demand, it is difficult not to be left with the impression that BT has managed the deployment of ADSL and the standard product offered in a way, and on a timetable, that is profoundly linked to its own ability and inclination to provide any particular service.
	I conclude, therefore, by joining other noble Lords in expressing the strong hope, which I am sure the Minister will share, that Ofcom will bring to bear a far more vigorous and effective regulatory regime on the provision of broadband than Oftel achieved.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I declare an interest as a satisfied customer of BT Openworld since May 2001. I do not agree entirely, therefore, with the noble Viscount's remarks. But he is right that we face a new era, with Ofcom taking over the regulatory function. The Minister will remember from our debates last year on the Communications Bill, which set up Ofcom, that we placed on Ofcom the duty of having regard to,
	"the desirability of encouraging the availability and use of high speed data transfer services throughout the United Kingdom".
	In spite of the convoluted language used, that means that Ofcom is taking over the baton from Oftel and doing what it can—perhaps much better than Oftel did—with the resources being made available to it as a regulator to support the Government's target of having the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. I imagine that most noble Lords would agree—certainly those who took part in debates on the Bill did—that competition is on the whole the most effective way of achieving that objective. However, as noble Lords said during the debates on the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, in June, competition may not be able to deal with the rural/urban divide, which has been the subject of many noble Lords' remarks.
	Access to broadband via DSL is now available to over 89 per cent of homes in the UK. The number of customers has passed the 3 million mark, with 55 per cent using DSL and 45 per cent cable. Some 40,000 new broadband users a week are coming on board. That is not a bad record. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that we should not be unduly pessimistic about take-up.
	Other technology may have a contribution to make in areas where DSL is not available, particularly broadband fixed wireless access, although to date they have not been very significant. We have noted the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that licences were awarded in the 3.4 gigahertz spectrum in June 2003. However, the winners of that option—PCCW, which took over 14 of the 15 licences—has yet to make any use of the spectrum. It would be interesting to know whether the Government have information about its plans. In the 28 gigahertz band, one firm offers low contention data services to business in four cities, but at quite a high cost. In February, BT will begin trials in some rural areas of the newly released 5.8 gigahertz band, which can provide download speeds of 1 megabits per second to people living beyond the reach of broadband-enabled exchanges. That may provide some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Granchester, in particular, and others concerned about the rural divide.
	Noble Lords have mentioned 3G mobiles only en passant. They may be attractive to a new group of broadband users, mostly, I suspect, for non-business purposes, and particularly to teenagers. It is reported that manufacturers are offering models specifically designed for teenagers. To protect young people, the models are incapable of accessing adult services and gambling, and retailers will demand proof of age. Assuming that those rules work—that is a big assumption—children may still be able to enter chatrooms, where they may be exposed to temptations and risks.
	A few months ago, ACPO placed a bid for £5 million for the Government to fund regional centres to combat Internet paedophiles. That would enable the police to copy hard disks without alteration, which is needed to comply with the rules of evidence. The growth of broadband creates new opportunities for criminals of all kinds, including terrorists, animal rights extremists, fraudsters claiming to offer partnerships in the assets of dead African dictators, and people who for a variety of motives engage in "denial of service" attacks, which preoccupied the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and other noble Lords two years ago when he introduced the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill. The police must have the resources to deal effectively with all those threats. It would be useful if the Minister, in his winding-up speech, could say how the Government will respond to ACPO'S first, modest request for a mere £5 million.
	The retail market for broadband is reasonably competitive, with cable offering an alternative to DSL in some areas, and the introduction of a range of products based on datastream, which has been mentioned, starting with an entry-level 150-kilobits-per-second service at £16 per month, which has proved very popular. I am not sure whether I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that we have the wrong definition of broadband. A variety of services at different speeds and different prices will stimulate the market most effectively. If what suppliers are telling me is true, there has been an astonishing take-up of the low-speed 150 Kb service that has been on offer.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for permitting me to intervene. My problem with the definition is not so much that there is something intrinsically wrong with defining 128 kilobits per second as the lower limit of broadband. My problem is that, in analysing the statistics, it becomes impossible to know whether a particular series of statistics includes 128 kilobits or not.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I understood the noble Earl's point that it distorts the picture when trying to compare take-up in the UK with that of other G7 states. That point must be noted in future statistical comparisons.
	We have heard that the suppliers of datastream services are complaining that BT discriminates against them because of its pricing policies, particularly in the charge of £50 for migrating from IP stream. Having endowed the regulator with extensive powers against the exploitation of a dominant position by an SMP, it would be incongruous of Parliament to egg on one party or another from the touchline in these debates. We have translated the rules of the game contained in the European directives into language that can be interpreted by UK players, and we set up Ofcom as the referee. After several seasons, we might well look at the rules again and, if necessary, improve the referee's powers. But it would be perverse in the extreme to do that when the first round has only just started.
	I have read Oftel's 215-page document, published on 16 December, to which the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, referred, Identification and analysis of markets, determination of market power and setting SMP conditions for the wholesale broadband access market, and noted the finding, based on its growing market share, that BT possesses single-firm SMP in the broadband origination and conveyance markets. However, the regulator intends to set conditions, not only the requirement to provide access with retail minus pricing, which the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, criticises, but requirements not to discriminate unduly in favour of their own retail activities; to provide a reference offer; to notify charges, terms and conditions; and to provide transparency in the quality of service information.
	I should point out to the noble Earl that it is still a draft report and that there is an opportunity to make representations up to 6 February. Ofcom will have to take those into consideration. It is in the nature of the process of regulation that not everybody can be satisfied, with the person having SMP—in this case, BT—wanting less onerous conditions and others wanting tighter conditions. However, the particular viewpoints of the players are not a matter for Parliament.
	The Government's role in accelerating broadband rollout is principally that of a large customer. The DTI's broadband aggregation project, which has been mentioned, is an effective way of mobilising demand, and the principle of aggregation has also worked well in bridging the rural divide, although it is not the only way. The idea of having a variety of partnerships has been mentioned. Such arrangements have been deployed in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England to stimulate demand and usage. I noted that Stornoway, Kirkwall and Lerwick have been connected through one such partnership and that accessibility has shot up in Scotland as a whole, from 39 per cent of users early in 2003 to 70 per cent by the end of the year.
	My noble friend Lord Redesdale has drawn my attention to the fact that most, if not all, successful partnerships have been in areas that qualify for EU Objective 1 status. I note that the Act Now partnership in Cornwall, which has been taken as a model by many people, is still a useful example to others. It is holding a conference next month to explore the possibility of further partnerships and consider how people can learn from existing ones. However, there are many rural areas. The rural areas in the constituency of my right honourable friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed do not have Objective 1 status, and there are many such areas. I hope that Stephen Timms, when he addresses the conference, will pay particular attention to rural areas that do not have Objective 1 status. If it is correct to say that it is only through EU funding that the partnerships have been successful, that will leave out a great many areas.
	One of the recommendations that, I understand, is to be made in a report by the broadband stakeholders group in the next few weeks is that the Government should undertake a study of the potential implications of broadband-enabled remote and flexible working for the UK's communications, transport, housing and planning policies. I support that idea enthusiastically, because I think that we have, at last, the means of enabling remote working, which has been discussed for the past 20 years, and, in particular, a means of enabling women to balance work and home commitments and enabling many talented women to remain economically active while they look after small children. The Government might also conduct a survey of firms that already employ remote workers, to see what lessons there are to be learnt for management and for staff relations. In local government, they might investigate whether teleworking/broadband initiatives are being cramped by the need to concentrate on the e-government agenda, as I heard was the case in one London borough.
	Apart from implementing the systems, the other huge problem, which has been touched on, is how to assist the information-poor to access the systems and share the benefits that IT-literate people already take for granted. According to the Commons Library, 88 per cent of 16 to 24 year-olds used the Internet in October 2003, but only 16 per cent of those aged over 65 did so. That point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. Of the one third of adults who had never used the Internet, just over half said that they did not want to use it, had no need for it or had no interest in it. My honourable friend Mr Richard Allan asked about the "won't surfs", as they are called, in another place the other day. The Minister who replied, Douglas Alexander, referred to the "Get Started" campaign, which targets hard-to-reach groups, especially the elderly, but said that he saw the difficulty as one of lack of skills and experience rather than lack of motivation. I suggest that we have to deal with both, and that should be one of the objectives of the digital inclusion panel, announced by the Secretary of State, Patricia Hewitt, on 15 December.
	The broadband industry group quotes research—I think that it was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll—that shows that a clear link exists between communications technologies and economic growth. On the most cautious assumptions, it says that, by 2010, GDP will be £3.5 billion higher as a result of broadband, and that it could be as much as £16 billion higher. The benefits in terms of quality of life could be even more dramatic. UK-wide availability of broadband would encourage many businesses to migrate from London to the regions, and from high-rent cities to smaller towns and villages. It will help employers to stagger working hours, relieving pressure on commuter transport systems. It will enrich our leisure; for example, in the enormous growth of online genealogical information or in the creation of personal websites that enable us to share information with people throughout the world. It will enhance democracy by enabling us all to keep tabs on what the Government are doing and to build web-based coalitions for correcting their mistakes. That is why this is the most important issue that we face in the 21st century.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for introducing this timely debate, which has enabled us to hear his expert analysis of where we are today. It also enabled us to hear from other speakers, and I refer particularly to the tour de force by my noble friend Lord Northesk. It makes me feel weird standing here, as I am no techie. I am proud to say that I am now on broadband, but the side-effect has been that the telephone extension in my sitting-room and the telephone extension in my bedroom no longer ring. I am having great difficulty getting British Telecom to turn up at a time when I can be there. I have no doubt that all will be well.
	Broadband is an umbrella term for various technologies that give users access to the Internet at a much higher speed than the standard 56-kilobyte modem. I am delighted to move at such a pace at home. The Government have asserted that broadband is important because broadband subscriber growth will,
	"facilitate the next phase of e-commerce",
	That is correct, but it has not happened yet, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, so eloquently outlined. The additional bandwidth provided by a broadband connection allows new value-added services to be delivered to consumers and businesses alike. That is wonderful.
	The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, enthused about some of the benefits, some of which I have listed and some of which we have heard about today. Businesses can save time and money, and they stand to benefit from productivity improvements. Catalogue and stock databases can be hosted by specialist ISPs. Virtual private networks can be set up, and broadband enables application service provision that permits the outsourcing of IT functions.
	For consumers, the DTI has suggested that there are a number of additional benefits. The Internet can be accessible from several PCs, and online gaming, music and video can be available. Other benefits include two-way, real-time visual communication, opportunities for long-distance learning and the delivery of all kinds of key services. How exciting all that sounds. But so much more needs to be done to encourage those uses. I look forward to hearing the response of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury.
	The Government's record so far with this exciting new opportunity is frustratingly poor. Their targets are still not being met. There is a lack of clarity in the institutional and competitive framework that the Government have created. Their failure to create an adequate competitive environment is damaging. The Government should have a duty to promote competition and to reduce regulation.
	My noble friend Lord Northesk graphically outlined BT's hold on the market. The bottom line still is that we have one supplier, one product and one price. The Government should create a more competitive environment to encourage new entrants to that market. They should entrust the regulator with a remit to protect against market abuse until a competitive market evolves. It is for the regulator to protect users and consumers of national services and utilities and to stimulate national competitiveness.
	As a country, where are we? I am not as impressed as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, by where we are right now. The CBI states that Britain lies sixth among the G7 countries in broadband connections and that few small and medium-sized enterprises are yet connected. According to the broadband stakeholder group, only one household in 25 is currently subscribing to broadband. Less than one household in every 30 that has a computer is hooked up to a broadband service. In the business community, among firms employing more than 10 people, less than one in five has a broadband connection.
	In January, only 1.4 million households and businesses were connected to a broadband service. According to Oftel, Britain has only slightly more than half as many lines connected to broadband per head of population as Germany, and just over a quarter as many as Sweden. The noble Lord, Lord St John, asked: where are we today towards the Government's avowed target? Perhaps the Minister will be able to cheer us up in his response. Perhaps the United States of America lags even further behind than we do.
	It has often been said that the advent of broadband is similar to the invention and use of electricity. Not only does it capture the public's imagination—it does not seem to have quite done that yet—but also it is seen as essential in providing the link between business and the community. The Country Land and Business Association believes that broadband can be even more than that. Like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I, too, believe that it can be the tool that leads to economic prosperity while bringing communities together, as has been said.
	Sadly, the clear lack of affordable broadband in rural areas illustrates the widening urban/rural divide. But that does not have to be the case. The recognition of the benefits attached to the introduction of broadband by policy makers will make a step in the right direction. Greater use of broadband technology by all government departments would be another step forward, as we have heard suggested today more than once. Broadband is vital to all elements that make up Britain. Without the ability to access affordable broadband, Britain will suffer. To let that happen due to lack of sensible co-ordinated policy direction, when the infrastructure is already in place, represents a truly missed opportunity.
	I look forward to the Minister's reply. After all, he is a bit of a techie himself, and a major investor of his time. As I finish, I should like to observe that in this the most modern of our debates, every speaker, other than the Minister and me, is an elected hereditary Peer.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, has raised this issue. It is one to which the Government attach great importance. Your Lordships' contributions have demonstrated that there is a great deal of interest and expertise in broadband. We also need to recall that our purpose is to contribute to greater prosperity for all, through improving business productivity, giving consumers access to better information and greater choice, and to provide better services, including public services, such as education and healthcare, and to deliver those benefits to all parts of society, not just to a few of them.
	A recent report by the Centre for Economic and Business Research suggested that broadband could be worth £22 billion to the UK economy by 2015. It is also interesting that hard evidence of the benefit to individual communities is starting to emerge as well; for example, a study of the small town of South Dundas in Ontario, Canada, with a population of 10,000, shows that implementing broadband has reversed a decade of declining employment. I also strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that there are huge quality-of-life benefits, including remote working, as well as the economic ones.
	Beyond those important general economic impacts, broadband also promises to deliver a bundle of more specific benefits, including opportunities for digital content providers to commercialise new products. With our strong media and computer games industries, that is an area where the UK has the potential to benefit greatly. I was very glad that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, introduced a subject which is dear to my heart; namely, grid computing. I think that in this country, we are developing a real world position in grid computing, which will drive the second generation of Internet in the future.
	In recognition of broadband's potential early in 2001, the Government set out an ambitious target for the UK to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005 because it is the market that can best deliver customer choice, value for money and innovation.
	We have come a long way over the past three years. On competitiveness and extensiveness, we were at the time fourth and fifth out of the G7 respectively. OECD figures for broadband penetration had us in 22nd place behind the Czech Republic. Since then we have made huge progress. In spring 2002, prices fell, so that from sixth in the G7, we moved up to third best for price. That helped us to move from fourth to third in the overall competitiveness measure.
	Now, with broadband available to more than 80 per cent of households, we have overtaken the USA for availability. For the overall extensiveness measures, we have moved up from fifth to equal third—level with the USA and overtaking Germany. Only Japan and Canada among the G7 countries are ahead of us. That is a pretty remarkable transformation in our position.
	It took until the autumn of 2002 to reach 1 million subscribers, but by November 2003, there were more than 3 million. Now, we should have about 3.2 million subscribers. The figures are rising at some 150,000 per month.
	The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised the question of whether we would meet our target. Our current predictions are that by 2005 we are likely to be second behind Japan. There is a very clear story here. Not surprisingly—this is true of most markets—this market is driven by price. Price is driven by competition and with that comes service and the benefits that the consumer can get. As those have changed, so we have seen this take-off happen. I recognise that the national figures, though encouraging, provide little comfort for the mainly rural communities that are not yet connected. But there too the market is proving effective and innovative. The demand registration schemes promoted by BT and others have had a positive impact. BT's scheme has led to availability increasing well ahead of predictions made even a year ago.
	Technological development will help us on a range of fronts. I expect wireless to be a big element in the next phase of broadband development. Last year, the Radiocommunications Agency concluded a successful auction of 15 licences in the 3.4 gigahertz band for fixed wireless broadband, between them covering the whole country. In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, PCCW has made public its intention to proceed with a soft launch of broadband services in a trial area fairly soon. They will do that under the name UK Broadband. This again will add to competition alongside cable and, in a small way, satellite. This is beginning to make the market very competitive. I shall say more about that later.
	Satellite, as I said, also has a role. Alone of all the technologies it can cover the whole country. While satellite has some technological limitations, the main issue is price—it is more expensive for a single connection. The Government are helping to develop the satellite market particularly for small businesses in rural areas through such schemes as the Remote Area BroadBand Inclusion Trial or RABBIT programme run by a consortium of RDAs.
	An encouraging sign here is that people in rural communities are taking action to gain access to broadband services. Around the UK communities have either set up their own solutions or have demonstrated the value of demand for broadband to suppliers. There is a great ferment of innovation and energy at community level. It has been suggested—slightly fancifully but interestingly—that we have seen nothing like this since communities went out very publicly to try and get railways to come to their areas. In any case, it is a powerful and welcome force.
	The DTI and Defra are working together to support this effort. We have set up a joint Rural Broadband Unit to make the response from the Government and the regional development agencies to the challenge of rural broadband more coherent and effective but more needs to be done. To realise the true benefits of broadband it needs to become ubiquitous so that every company and every community is able to access it.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, about the need for partnership. The Government have called for a new and deeper partnership between the broadband industry, national, regional and local government and local communities. We all need to work together more closely over the next two years to achieve our goal of a Britain in which broadband is available, not in 90 or 95 per cent of communities, but in every single community by the end of 2005. BT has already responded to this call to arms and also I suspect to increasing competition, by announcing that it is eager to work with local communities towards a vision of 100 per cent availability by 2005. I welcome that commitment.
	There will undoubtedly be hurdles to overcome, highest in the remotest parts of the UK. We will have to foster continuing innovation in the market. We will need to build demand by working more closely with small businesses to show them the opportunities that broadband offers and by attracting more people to use government services online.
	The public sector is committed to exploiting broadband. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, is absolutely correct. Between 2003 and 2006 public services will spend £1 billion on broadband connectivity to raise standards in schools, improve services at our GPs' surgeries and make our public libraries into community information hubs. The DTI is working with key public sector customers to aggregate demand and to use our buying power to extend the reach of broadband into new areas. This work will start to bear fruit this year through the network of Regional Aggregation Bodies that we are establishing in the English regions. Of course the private sector can ride on the back of these initiatives.
	The RDAs have taken up the challenge and have committed, we estimate, some £235 million to broadband development over the period from 2000 to 2006. We will look for more opportunities to catalyse the sort of partnerships that have already borne fruit in Cornwall and elsewhere. The devolved administrations have also been imaginative and creative with broadband. For example, Northern Ireland is aiming for 100 per cent coverage, while both Scotland and Wales have very active programmes. If we succeed in bringing these partnerships together, we can deliver the prize of a more competitive and productive UK, a country in which the benefits of broadband are available for all who want them.
	I should like to deal with a number of general points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, asked whether further government funding would be available for rural broadband access following the £30 million DTI Broadband Fund. The present funding will expire in March this year. We estimate that the £30 million worth of DTI funding has stimulated or leveraged some £235 million worth of spending by RDAs up to 2006. Going forward, the Government will work in partnership with BT and other telecoms companies, with RDAs and other local agencies to complete access roll-out. The market is now beginning to work well, but further inputs from regional and local agencies will be required to complete the task.
	The noble Lord asked about the position of wireless technology. The new regulator of the telecoms industry, Ofcom, which took over from the Radiocommunications Agency in December, intends to continue to pursue the objectives of the radio agency; to make spectrum available in order to maximise the opportunity for operators to provide access to a full range of broadband services. I have mentioned the auction that has already taken place.
	The noble Lord also asked about the proportion of schools which already have broadband access. The great majority of secondary schools already have it and the Department for Education and Skills already plans to ensure that by 2006 all primary and secondary schools should have a minimum of 2 mbps and 8 mbps respectively. Turning to local loop unbundling, another point raised by the noble Lord, Ofcom will be reviewing the local loop unbundling market later this year.
	I should like to address the question of competition in the UK because a number of points were made about this which did not, I think, reflect the true situation. This was a major issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. Price, competition and the services that consumers can get are the three absolutely key factors that will drive the market. The UK is not perfectly competitive. As has been said, the recent publication by Ofcom of its wholesale market review makes it clear that the regulator believes that BT still has significant market power.
	However, this is a problem shared with probably every other market in the world. Indeed, the UK market is significantly more competitive than those in many comparable countries, particularly in Europe. Not only are our prices lower, but 45 per cent of households are able to choose between different technologies. There are more than 150 re-sellers of BT's ADSL products. As a result, BT has a retail market share of 25 per cent, which compares with 90 per cent for Deutsche Telekom in Germany and 55 per cent for France Telecom in France. So it is simply not true to say, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that we have one product, one supplier and one price. Further, when quoting Germany and Italy as exemplars, it should be noted that Italy is in seventh place on price, while Germany is also less price competitive than the UK and, of course, Deutsche Telekom is in a powerful position. This is a clear case where bringing competition to the market is paying off and we do not do at all badly on price.
	The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, mentioned cost-plus pricing. Ofcom has been established as an independent regulator and it is not for Ministers to interfere in these detailed decisions. Ofcom's wholesale broadband market review was published as a second stage of consultation. It has the difficult job of balancing incentives for BT and competitors and there is still an opportunity for companies such as members of the Broadband Industry Group to make representations to Ofcom.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The real question I wanted to get to the root of in respect of cost-plus versus retail-minus is whether the Government have a particular view on whether there are advantages that obtain to retail-minus or advantages that obtain to cost-plus. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we feel that this is an issue for Ofcom. There is no point in establishing a regulator and then trying to second-guess its policy. It is for the regulator to make decisions on this. It has issued a consultation document and it is now for people to respond to it in order to take this issue forward.
	The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, also raised the question of the definition of broadband, which is a subject on which he and I have had frequent correspondence. I should perhaps let the rest of the House into that dialogue. The Government's definition of broadband is guided by the independent advice of the Broadband Stakeholder Group. It uses a dynamic definition of broadband that is technology neutral and focused on the "always on" and interactive characteristics of broadband. The definition is:
	"Always on access at work, at home or on the move, provided by a range of fixed line, wireless and satellite technologies to progressively higher bandwidths capable of supporting genuinely new and innovative content, applications and services, and the delivery of enhanced public services".
	That is in line with the recent OECD paper, which concluded:
	"There is no universally accepted definition of broadband and national definitions vary, but it is generally agreed that it applies to always-on services, considerably faster than Integrated Services Digital Network".
	We do not keep information on other countries' definitions of broadband. However, in our analysis of the UK's relative position in the G7, we use the same definition to apply to all countries.
	The price of broadband in the UK, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord St John Bletso, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is a critical issue. Again, we should look at the total picture and the figures that we have. UK prices are competitive against most major markets, and they have continued to fall in the past two years to the point that, last year, according to Oftel, which is now Ofcom, broadband in the UK was cheaper than in Germany or the USA. That view is borne out by others. According to research commissioned from Telecom Communications, consultants for the DTI, we are the third best for price in G7, and more expensive only than Japan and Canada.
	The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised the question of trigger levels. Their use is a way of checking that demand is present before investment is a legitimate and innovative way of managing investment. We could, however, be more transparent about the process, and Stephen Timms and Alun Michael have written to BT about that.
	The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, raised the question of traffic management. That is an area in which the DTI and DfT are working closely together to make certain that problems do not arise.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the question of child pornography, which we regard as a serious issue. While the Internet has undoubtedly facilitated the opportunity for individuals to view and distribute child abuse images, it has also offered law enforcement an increased opportunity to locate and deal with individuals engaged in child abuse, and the viewing or distribution of child abuse images. In answer to his specific question about the ACPO bid, that is a matter for my colleagues in the Home Office, and I shall write to the noble Lord on that subject.
	There were a number of other specific technical questions, but as we are running out of time, I shall write to noble Lords on these matters.
	Broadband makes what the Internet has promised for so long a reality for individual consumers. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, that for broadband to take hold in our lives, more needs to be done to stimulate compelling content. Technology alone is not persuasive. Customers have to see a marked difference from their current experience. The major existing content providers, such as BBC and Hollywood, will have a major part to play. The UK is also rich in smaller companies with great potential as broadband content developers. We have been looking at the market barriers to content developers realising their potential, and at possible solutions.
	In the future, we can expect an increasing demand from consumers for higher-speed services. Telewest and NTL have led the way in offering 1 and 2 megabit-per-second services. In due course, we will need to push up to 5 and 10 megabits. We shall see more and more high value-added applications, delivered through an increasing array of broadband-enabled devices. A critical success factor is whether the UK can develop the next generation networks to carry this volume of data fast enough to keep up with demand.
	We have made great progress in the past few years, but there is a great deal more to do. We want take-up to rise, availability to spread and services to accelerate. A competitive market is the best way of delivering that, but the Government will continue to work hard where the market needs their help.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive response to many of our questions. I was interested that right at the outset the Minister mentioned that the benefits of fully embracing broadband by 2015 could be worth almost £22 billion to the UK economy. The emphasis should be on fully embracing broadband now—that is one of the core issues that I tried to highlight in my brief speech.
	The Minister also spoke in glowing terms of the availability of broadband in the United Kingdom compared with our international partners. That is true, but he did not, I feel, make enough reference to broadband take-up in this country, which has to be one of the main focuses.
	I am pleased that the Minister also acknowledged the need for greater partnerships and certainly that the Government see broadband usage as a core objective. To that end, I am very grateful to all of your Lordships who spoke with so much authority and made well informed, wide-ranging and thoughtful speeches.
	There were a number of common themes: the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, with his customary expert knowledge on this subject, along with the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others, spoke on the need for greater competition, the greater affordability of broadband and the contrast between broadband coverage and take-up. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, focused specifically on the needs of the rural community. There is no doubt that there will be a great need for a greater reach of affordable broadband in the rural areas. I agree with him that if there is far more reach in the rural areas, that will result in a far higher percentage of take-up than in the urban areas.
	My noble friend Lord Erroll, in his customary, wide-ranging and expert way, also mentioned the importance of wireless. Certainly, wireless will have a major beneficial impact on extending affordable broadband throughout the United Kingdom. He also said that broadband is not just about high-speed access but also about reliability of service. That is a point well made.
	It was interesting to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, about the different applications for broadband as well as the need for greater broadband roll-out.
	I apologise for making reference to IP stream and datastream. I knew the one person to pick up on that point immediately would be the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with his vast technical expertise in your Lordships' House. I am pleased that he made reference to datastream and the different broadband options. No doubt the extension of the reach of affordable broadband services in rural areas will need to happen through partnerships.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the Minister both said, this has been an excellent opportunity to eulogise on the many benefits and uses of broadband to consumers and, just as importantly, to business. I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Light Dues

Lord Geddes: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to redistribute light dues in an equitable manner across all users.
	My Lords, I am delighted to see the quality of noble Lords lining up to speak on this issue. May I also say how delighted I am that the Minister has chosen this subject this evening with which to open his account in your Lordships' House? The only problem, if I might say so, is that, by convention and custom of the House, we are unable to intervene in his winding-up speech. I assure him that on other occasions we will be so entitled, but this evening he will have a clear run.
	For the record, let me outline what this arcane system of light dues—this tax—actually is and why I feel so strongly that reform is long overdue. Light dues are an historic tax on shipping users in UK ports. Vessels are assessed for light dues on their size and frequency of call. Shipping companies who operate from and to UK ports facilitating UK trade and contributing substantially to inward investment, and direct and indirect UK employment, have long campaigned against light dues. Their issue is that they should not have to pay for a service which they do not have to pay for at other European ports. Such shipping lines, of course, have the option of using other ports on the Continent as their primary European port of call. If the continuation of this tax makes our ports uncompetitive, that would clearly be very damaging to the UK economy.
	As a result of long and concentrated action by such companies, the Department for Transport commissioned an economic review into the tax in May 2002. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to give us a progress report on that review and some reassurance about its outcome.
	Manifestly, all ships have to pay for the costs of visiting a port. Those costs cover a range of services, including pilotage, port costs, towage, mooring costs, and so forth. However, what distinguishes UK ports is that the additional light dues cost of up to £16,000 per port call is charged on each merchant vessel. That does not happen elsewhere in the world.
	UK ports have made great strides over recent years in order to improve efficiency and introduce modern operating methods. Yet that enormous effort made by both port workers and management alike is being undermined by a government tax that threatens the competitiveness of our ports compared with those on the Continent. Other noble Lords may well enlarge on the statistics; I should like to give one. Like for like, Southampton is 25 per cent more expensive than Rotterdam.
	Your Lordships will appreciate that the ports industry is increasingly competitive. It is vital for the UK economy that our ports can compete on equal terms with our European rivals. The Government maintain that charges should be fair and equitable and that the user should pay. I do not dispute that. Yet light dues are neither fair nor equitable. Many who need the services of navigational aids by and large do not pay for them. But those that may well not need them, do pay. That is perverse. If, because of this additional tax, shipping lines decide to use alternative ports on the Continent—I have already mentioned Rotterdam—and tranship goods to the UK, who will that benefit—the UK economy or our European competitors? Surely the answer is clear.
	In opposition, Labour promised the abolition of light dues in its 1993 policy paper Full Steam Ahead, which cited the,
	"commercial disadvantages to British port operations and shipowners",
	caused by this tax. But have the Government honoured that promise? No, as of yet they have not, but as always we live in hope.
	The latest indictment of light dues came in Chapter 9 of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee Ports Report of 13 November 2003, which condemned light dues with these words:
	"The UK has historically employed a system of light dues to cover the cost of navigation aids. Such a system is inconsistent with other European countries and distorts competition. The Government should reconsider the entire concept of light dues".
	That was a Labour Party promulgation.
	Of course, this was not the first time that the tax had been condemned by a Select Committee. As recently as 1834—yes, 1834—a highly regarded Select Committee called for the abolition of this tax. So this tax has been considered outdated and unfair for 170 years.
	My Question relates to the redistribution of light dues in an equitable manner. Let me give three examples of inequitability—I am assured that such a word exists. First, in 2001–02, users of English and Welsh ports paid £62.5 million in light dues against expenditure by Trinity House of £30.2 million. In Scotland, the comparable figures were £8.5 million income against £24.2 million spent by the Northern Lights Board. In Ireland, north and south combined, income from light dues was £3.8 million against £16.2 million spent by the Commissioners of Irish Lights. Why the geographical disparity?
	My second example is that successive UK governments have laboured for years in renegotiation with the Republic of Ireland over the historic anomaly which means that the UK taxpayer subsidises Irish navigational aids from UK light dues to the tune of £5 million per year. Can the Minister enlighten the House on what progress has been made in removing this unwarranted subsidy?
	Finally, in the same year, 2001–02, total income from light dues levied at UK and Irish ports totalled £74.8 million against expenditure of £70.6 million. What happened to the £4.2 million excess? Where did it go? Presumably in increasing the already enormous £64 million General Lighthouse Fund. In that respect I rely on paragraph 2.20 of the DTLR consultation document Light Dues Review. While half of that £64 million reserve is allocated to cover pension liabilities—and quite rightly so—the remaining £32 million seems to be being held to "clear wrecks"—a cost the risk of which has for decades been covered by insurance policies. Is this not a classic case of duplication?
	As I have said, the May 2002 review of light dues needs to be brought to a conclusion. In his reply today, I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to give the UK ports and shipping industries some comfort. In particular, can he tell the House when the Department for Transport will bring this matter to a conclusion? And will he please give us some assurance that this outdated and unfair tax will be abolished once and for all?

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for introducing the debate. As he said, the subject has been around for a very long time and it is appropriate that we should now discuss it again.
	I declare an interest as president of the UK Marine Pilots Association, which does not want either to gain or to lose by this. But the subject has a relevance to it, as I shall explain later.
	I should like to talk about redistribution, the subject of the Question. In addition to being involved with a large amount of shipping, I sail. The navigational aids around our coast are extremely good and are essential for the safe navigation of big ships, little ships and many other vessels. I would have no objection in principle to contributing some money to the maintenance of lighthouses, but there would be a severe difficulty in getting off the ground the registration scheme that surely would be necessary.
	I am thinking here of some of those lovely boats that one sees in mud berths around the country. Do they ever move? If they do move, it would not be like purchasing a vehicle excise duty and knowing which roads constitute highways and which roads do not. The question of when a waterway becomes the sea and therefore covered by such a scheme would become extremely complicated.
	Given the amount of money, about £70 million as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said, that is involved in the provision of these lighthouses around this country and Ireland, which I shall come on to, I suspect that setting up and enforcing a registration scheme for small boats would probably cost almost as much money as it would raise, if not more. I am not sure that that is an option that is worth pursing, but perhaps the Government have a different view.
	My second point about redistribution, again raised by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, is the Irish question. It must be about 85 years since the Republic of Ireland came into being and we have been subsidising its lighthouses ever since. I was in Ireland last summer and I did not think the lighthouses were very good, so they probably reflect the fact that the Republic of Ireland only spends £5 million a year of our money on them. But what are we doing still keeping the Republic of Ireland's lighthouses alight? Surely the answer is to threaten the Republic of Ireland, with enough time so that it can get its own resources available, and say, "We shall switch you off on 1 January next year". Then we shall see what happens. It is ridiculous that it has been going on for 85 years or so. After all, the Republic of Ireland is independent of the UK, as we rightly keep being reminded. Why should we be maintaining its lighthouses? It is quite incredible.
	The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred to the Select Committee and its report. I shall refer to the table on page 49. It shows the various charges made for big ships going into ports. It goes through pilotage, towage, linesman, port dues, light dues and total. What we see from it is that the charge for light dues is higher than the charge for port dues. Light dues are 34.9 per cent of the total and port dues are 29 per cent. It is extraordinary. The port dues are there because port facilities, such as dredging and quays, are provided for the benefit of the ships. To have the port dues less than the light dues is quite extraordinary. It confirms the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, that this is a major contribution to why ports in this country have a real struggle to remain competitive.
	It is a shame that the port services directive, which was going through the European system, has probably stopped now. The differences in the way ports are owned in the UK and in much of Europe and in the way people pay for the capital costs, dredging and other services, mean that we are already at a severe disadvantage. Having to pay the light dues on top of that is very serious. It is seriously anti-competitive. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, that more than 10 years ago my party committed itself to getting rid of light dues, saying that they were a commercial disadvantage to British port operators and ship owners. Ministers in the past few years have done a great deal in some ways to help British shipping, but they have not done much in this context. It is about time they did.
	The Select Committee in another place produced a very good report. As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has said, it would be nice to know when the Department for Transport's own report will come out. When the Select Committee says that,
	"The Government supports initiatives on funding and charging to create free and fair competition in the ports sector",
	it seems to me that they are doing exactly the opposite. It is not free and fair competition with the continent. You can go into most of the important continental countries on the western seaboard, I shall not go into detail, and you do not have to pay light dues. Here you have to pay. It is time we changed. I do not believe it is worth £75 million, less the £5 million that we shall switch off in Ireland. Seventy million pounds are not worth a registration system for small boats. In my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's overall Budget for this country, £75 million is not really a great deal. It would be much better to stop all the hassle, switch off Ireland and make it separate, and then give one boost to the British shipping industry, to follow what has been done in other situations, and say that we will fund it ourselves.

Lord Greenway: My Lords, I, too, welcome the new Minister to his post and wish him well on his maiden voyage in this House and at the Dispatch Box. He is dealing with a subject close to the sea and ships. Debates of such a nature tend to come up rather late at night. I am not certain whether shipping will be an ongoing task so far as he is concerned, but if it is he may have to get used to taking debates quite late at night. That is a pity, because shipping is still very important to this country. I do not need to point out that, in weight, something like 90 per cent of our goods still come by sea.
	I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, on his assiduousness in bringing forward the topic yet again. It is not the first time that the House has discussed light dues, and I am sure that it will not be the last.
	So far as light dues are concerned, the Government have followed the user-pays principle, which, after all, is one of the principles of the EU. I am only sorry that their efforts to persuade some of our close neighbours have not borne fruit, but I may have more to say on that in a minute.
	Light dues were last raised in 1993—some time ago—and reduced in 1997 and again in 2002. Some reduction has been made in terms of tonnage, which has benefited the larger ships coming to our ports.
	The International Association of Lighthouse Associations—IALA—recently carried out a survey on light dues. It received responses from 55 countries, 23 of which—getting on for 50 per cent—charged something for the provision of lights and buoyage, either wholly or in part. In Europe, Sweden, Spain and Greece charge fully, like ourselves. Although it is claimed that our immediate competitors across the channel do not charge, charges are probably made in other ways, with some hidden in conservancy charges, local government charges and so forth. It is not entirely true to say that some of the countries are not charging.
	The real problem arises from the fact that we are too honest in this country. We are transparent; our light dues are up there for everyone to see, and it is much easier to complain about something that one can see than something that one does not see. The moneys are paid into the general lighthouse fund, which comes under the Secretary of State's aegis, and are distributed to the three general lighthouse authorities. Those are Trinity House—I must declare an interest as a younger brother of Trinity House—Northern Lights and Irish Lights. It is important to point out that 84 per cent of the dues are paid by foreign-flagged ships.
	Huge progress has been made by the general lighthouse authorities over the past 10 years in cutting their costs through a very extensive modernisation programme, which has seen the abandonment of lighthouse keepers and light-vessel crews, and the widespread introduction of solar power for powering lights. The fleets of lighthouse tenders have been cut dramatically. For instance, Trinity House used to have five, and now has two. So the lighthouse authorities have been doing their bit and they should be congratulated on that. Can one imagine a government department being able to cut its cloth in that way? I cannot think of a way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, is asking for a more equitable way of payment. There were suggestions that Royal Navy vessels and recreational craft should pay. Following yesterday's defence debate and what has been happening with the Navy, charging Her Majesty's ships light dues would go down like a lead balloon. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, touched on yachts. It can be argued that yachtsmen have just as little need for those navigational aids now as larger ships. They all use GPS these days if they are to go offshore, so they know where they are all the time and do not necessarily need those extra aids. Yachts are not earning money as commercial ships are. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, touched on how one can charge yachtsmen. That is probably the stumbling block. It would be almost impossible, short of full yacht registration, which I do not believe the Government want. Finding a way of charging yachtsmen, whatever the actual method of charging, would cost more than the money that would be realised. We are talking about only £2 million to £2.5 million at the most, which would not make a big blip compared with £70 million.
	Contributions to the Irish Government have been mentioned. It will be interesting to see the results of the latest review. There is an argument for keeping lights—I must also mention the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which is in a similar position—whereby services are provided without government money. It may be of interest to know that both France and Holland have approached Trinity House for information on "the user pays" system for light dues. That is a real step in the right direction and I hope that something comes from that.
	Another argument against central funding comes from something that happened recently across the Channel, where the French Government have suddenly cut 25 per cent off the budget of the French general lighthouse authority. The cut is of such an extent that the authority has had to lay out tenders and it simply cannot afford to service some of its navigational aids. I suggest that that is not a road we should go down.
	It is always enjoyable to have a debate that deals with maritime subjects. Looking around the Chamber I see many familiar figures. The noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, who will speak after me, has great experience of lighthouses. I am sure that his speech will be interesting. We look forward to the speech of the new Minister and await with interest the outcome of the latest review to see whether any progress can be made.

Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for initiating this short debate on an important and complicated issue. My interest in the matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, is as a former lighthouse keeper. I was born and brought up in the service of the Northern Lighthouse Board. Most of my comments will reflect the NLB rather than the other two general lighthouse authorities because I am more familiar with that board.
	The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, was quite right when he said that a Select Committee in 1834 had recommended that navigational aids be paid from the public purse. Something of the same was said by another Select Committee more up to date in 1845—and even more recently in 2003. That does not mean that they are correct in their analysis, but it is clear that the issue of light dues has been a talking point since the three statutory general lighthouse authorities were set up.
	Ship owners are a pretty hard-nosed lot—it comes with the territory and one does not blame them for, if I can use the metaphor, "wanting the penny and the bun". They would always have preferred the taxpayer to pay the Bill for lighting our shores—and when that was not on offer, at one time they wanted to control GLAs because they held that the GLAs were inefficient. But to bring history more up to date than the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, the Royal Commission on Lighthouse Administration, reporting in 1908, put it that the possibility of shipping companies controlling GLAs would be a very unusual proceeding indeed because ship owners would be interested only in the most frequented trade routes rather than the wider interests of providing sufficient sea marks around our coasts.
	The issue has moved on. It is said by some that lighthouses and other aids to navigation are no longer necessary and used by shipping, given the modern state-of-the-art bridges and vessels equipped with electronic charts and global navigation satellite systems. It is said that there is no need to impose on shipping what they regard as that tax and the cost should be transferred to the taxpayers as these traditional navigational aids are now used only by leisure users. Of course, as in the past, the accusation is still made that general lighthouse authorities are not efficient operations.
	Ship owners and ports have an arguable point. It is important for UK plc that we do not lose business to the continent. But I submit that the transfer of light dues to the taxpayers is not the way in which the matter should be addressed. It will not stop transhipment by smaller vessels from highly efficient ports such as Rotterdam. It will not increase the numbers of post-panamax vessels coming into the UK. There is a huge availability of coastal vessels on the continent and a lack of berths in the UK ports for post-panamax vessels to come here. And I am afraid that that is a fact of life.
	Let me try to deal with three issues: funding; the efficiency of the GLAs; and the future of aids to navigation. First, everyone wants to offload costs onto the taxpayers. We see it every day and hear it in this House and in another place all the time—until the time comes for one to pay one's own bill. Witness higher education. It appears that everyone with a school-age child would like the taxpayers to pick up the bill for university education—not to mention some politicians, whose motives are much less clear.
	However, that is not the real world. There is a limit to what the public purse will bear. And what of the charge that transfer to general taxation will put our ports on an equal footing with the rest of the world? As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, it is not true that light dues are a system peculiar to the United Kingdom and Ireland. He confirmed what I understood to be the position: if one takes the majority of coastal states in the developed world, about one third charge light dues, one third have a mix and one third fund it wholly from taxation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, I would be amazed if France, Holland and Germany do not manage to lose their aids to navigation costs and other charges. That is much easier to do, of course, given the smaller coastlines of two of those three countries. Contrast that with the Scottish and Manx coasts, which are the statutory area of the Northern Lighthouse Board, where there are 10,000 kilometres of coast; 790 islands; 198 lighthouses; 131 buoys; 41 beacons; 22 racons; four differential global positioning satellite stations; and most of the offshore oil installations in UK waters.
	Most of all, I oppose the transfer to the taxpayer for the same reason that to this day the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is funded by voluntary contributions. It was always held in the fishing, crofting and maritime communities where I was brought up that if the RNLI were funded by taxation and transferred to, say, what is now the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Treasury would be quick to look for savings. Lifeboat stations would be closed on economic grounds and the absolute raison d'entre of lifesaving would be compromised. That same view holds true today in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. As a case in point, there are not too many coastguard stations left. There are very few eyes watching the sea.
	I believe that the same would happen to lighthouses as aids to navigation if transferred to the taxpayer. I believe that we have had an indication from the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, as to what is happening on the French coasts. The motto of two of the three general lighthouse authorities is In Salutem Omnium, which for the non-Latin scholars among us means "For the safety of all". I believe that that motto would be quickly made redundant if the matter was passed to general taxation.
	As regards efficiency, as I have said the 1908 Royal Commission rejected the charges then of inefficiency, which left it with very few recommendations to make. Coming on many years, in my own experience there was no profligacy in the lighthouse service. I can well remember annual storing requisitions coming back full of red ink, deleting almost everything that we had asked for that the superintendents thought—no, knew—was unnecessary for the efficient running of the station. There was no chance of that extra boiler suit, extra pot of red lead or an extra few fathoms of rope. As I recall, there was never much shortage of Brasso. But there was efficiency.
	The standard that we operated to was nothing but that the best was good enough. Even so, the service today bears absolutely no resemblance to my experience. It would be easy to be sentimental, but I can be as hard nosed as anyone. Today, there are no lighthouse-keepers; the solarisation programme is leading to huge cost savings and at many of the lights is obviating the need even for part-time attendants. The Northern Lighthouse Board has closed bases at Leith, Granton and Stromness. They have a wholly automatic and remote telemetry-operated service. They have two ships instead of four and one of those is a smaller, although a very capable, buoy tender.
	Ships used to be kept for 30 or more years, but they are now worked so hard that already plans are in hand to replace the not-so-old NLB "Pharos". The use of helicopters working with a helicopter-capable ship has transformed the economics in servicing and storing lights and in reducing ship and crew complements.
	The same process, as we have heard, has applied in the Trinity House Lighthouse Service and in the Irish Lights. There is close co-operation between the three general lighthouse authorities. When I was on the Isle of Mull last summer the Irish Lights ILV "Granuiale" was working in the Sound of Mull. I understand that both NLB ships were in Irish waters last year and Trinity House ships have been seen in Scottish waters. That is as it should be. The GLAs are working together to replace NLB "Pharos" and THV "Mermaid" to a common design based on the Irish Lights "Granuiale", again reducing costs with common ships with a smaller crew complement.
	The Northern Lighthouse Board has certified to ISO 900l:2000 obtained at the first time of asking last year and that, as noble Lords will know, is an internationally recognised standard in business management practices.
	Costs continue to be reduced and efficiencies increased in all three services, which are to the benefit of all who sail in our waters. That has enabled light dues to be reduced from 46 pence per tonne a few years ago to 40 pence per tonne. There is now the new tonnage cap at 40,000 tonnes.
	I turn briefly to the continuing need for aids to navigation. There seems to be a fiction that if only some shipping companies were listened to then some lights could be extinguished. The truth of the matter is that GLAs have in depth discussions and consultation with commercial and leisure users. They have good working relationships with bodies such as the Chamber of Shipping. Yes, some lights may be discontinued where they are solely used for waypoint navigation. But for the remainder—and that is the majority—lighthouses will continue to be part of the aid to navigation mix for the foreseeable future, not least probably for the next 20 years or so. That is going to include lights, beacons, floating aids, buoys, perhaps some audible signals, racons and terrestrial and satellite navigation.
	At present the GNSS is not wholly reliable, and given the mix of equipment on bridges and the mix of quality and training of watchkeeping officers on the bridges, it is essential that there is comprehensive back-up to the seafarer. That is not just for the sake of the mariner, the ship and the cargo but for that of the environment.
	For example, on the environment, the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, Safer Ships: Cleaner Seas, led to the construction of new lights to the west of the Outer Hebrides during the past few years. Some former major lights have been downgraded; some have been discontinued. That will have been done in consultation with users. At present, Tor Ness lighthouse in Orkney is being upgraded—obviously in agreement with users—to a major light.
	So we are a long way from the demise of aids to navigation. They are as vital as ever and they need to be funded. How do we do that? As I said, my view is not that we should transfer the cost to the taxpayer. The Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, is along the right lines: how can the cost be fairly redistributed? I have no objection to leisure craft paying up. I know that there are difficulties with a licensing system, but I do not believe that people should be able to go to the boatyard, buy a cruiser or yacht and set sail without a licence or demonstration of qualification or competence of any kind. With a licence could perhaps come light dues. There is no reason why ferry companies should not pay up; I would not even mind if the taxpayer had some involvement through the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.
	My time is up, so I shall leave my speech there, but I want to welcome my noble friend to his new brief—this is a rather esoteric subject for his first outing, but I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, who speaks with such personal authority. I add my welcome to the Treasury Bench to the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, who will make his maiden speech in answer to the Question. I wonder how he will deal with the requirement not to be controversial. Perhaps he will agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said. We will find out. I am certain that he will say whatever he has to say non-controversially.
	I start by reminding the House that during the 1980s I was a member of the now-defunct Royal Naval Auxiliary Service in the seaman's branch and as such used and trained on the lights, beacons, marks and buoys around the shores of Britain, Ireland and the Channel Islands. The RNXS was equipped with radar and echo-sounders, but insisted on its seamen being trained on traditional navigational methods—largely by looking out of the porthole but also by taking visual fixes and subsequently plotting the course on a chart. The lights were well named—Skerrybore, Dubh Aach and Muckle Hugga—and many are correctly celebrated as part of our built heritage.
	This is by no means the first time that this subject has been debated in Parliament. I, too, read the same briefing material and learnt that Select Committees have been urging changes since at least 1834. Yet there seems to have been little movement. Perhaps the reason for that is that, on the face of it, light dues as currently determined are fairly easily collected in large amounts from relatively few companies, therefore meeting one of the canons of taxation—that it should be collectable.
	Other noble Lords have dealt with the general inequity of the current scheme and its potentially harmful effect on the economics of the shipping industry. I reinforce that economic disbenefit, which may harm the development of tourism in the form of visits to Scotland, say, by cruise liners. My honourable friend Viscount Thurso MP has cited the difficulty that Scrabster Harbour Trust has had in developing that trade. That is a good complaint, because many cruise passengers would like to visit the nearby Castle of May, if not other areas of Caithness. If light dues are harmful to the development of tourism, that adds to the demand for a change in the financing of navigation aids.
	On the subject of Ireland, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the subsidy to the Government of Ireland is presumably a hang-over from the treaty negotiations in 1921, and may need to be viewed in the same context as the four treaty ports, which expired in 1938. I suspect that the British negotiators did not trust the evolving Irish free state to maintain the lights properly. Ireland is central to the western approaches to England, Wales and Southern Scotland, so I am not surprised by the concern to ensure the Irish lights. The recent success of the Irish economy has reduced the likelihood of a failure to finance the Irish lights. However, I am not surprised that the Government of Ireland are dragging their feet over assuming responsibility for their lights. It reminds me of the attempt by the Danish Crown to pay off the mortgage on Orkney and Shetland. Curiously, the Scottish Crown regularly developed acute selective deafness.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's answer to the most apt question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Geddis. Will he admit that the Government will implement their proposals in opposition, full-steam ahead, or have they rung down to "dead slow ahead" and recanted?
	The issue is one of subsidy, which is paid at present by a few large shippers for the benefit of many others. That subsidy is certainly collectable but may result in harm to our economy. The choice facing Government seems to be one of either extending the range and scope of subsidy collection to most users—the leisure sector and possibly even the Royal Navy—or abolishing light dues and absorbing the subsidy into general taxation. Shipping and marine recreation both contribute to our economy, so the cost of providing lights, beacons and marks—navigational aids—can be seen as a national interest and hence suitable to receive funding from general taxation.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Geddis for introducing the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, who is the new Minister, will have to make an uncontroversial speech on a controversial subject, as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said, so we wish him luck. Having been deeply involved in the Labour Party over the past few years, the noble Lord is uniquely placed to cast light on his party's policy in this area, which is clouded with mystery.
	Perhaps I may start by taking the noble Lord back to a day that I am sure he remembers, 2 May 1996, when his colleague in another place, Graham Allen, talked about light duties. Mr Allen said that his plan would be to have the matter reviewed by the European Commission to minimise its impact on the competitiveness of UK ports. He said:
	"Light dues is one instance where the UK is adopting a different position to its European partners, and we need to establish consistency".
	Whether the cost would be paid for by the taxpayer, as in other European countries, remains to be seen. Mr Allen added:
	"In addition, on the Continent there is evidence of substantial payments from state governments for basic infrastructure, such as new quays and container terminals, and even subsidies for basic conservancy services, such as pilotage, navigational aids and dredging. Labour should consider pressing for a more rigorous enforcement by the European Union of the provisions to prevent unfair subsidies and to ensure that fair competition operates within the single European market".
	He continued:
	"We should look at pressing for the EC"—
	I suspect that he meant "EU"—
	"to publish its fact finding studies in this area, e.g. transparency of accounts and abuse of monopoly. A formalised and effective system of identifying sources of national aid is needed, covering both established sources of aid and 'one-off' contributions".
	Those are stirring words from someone in opposition. We must look at them and ask: what has happened, where have we got to, and what have the Government done since those words were spoken? It is a perplexing subject.
	We have some great expertise on the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has talked about the difference between port dues and light dues, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on the Cross Benches, has shared with us his usual expertise in shipping matters. The noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, who is an acknowledged expert on lighthouses, confirmed that, as far back as 1834, there was pressure for navigational aids to be paid for from the public purse. He then took us further forward to about 1908, a step further than my noble friend Lord Geddes got in his speech.
	In 2002, the Government launched a consultation on the possibility of reform. The consultation document stated:
	"The UK Government remains committed to a cost recovery system. It does not believe that taxpayers . . . should meet the costs of providing aids to navigation for shipping. The DTLR wishes to consult light dues payers and the users of marine aids to navigation on how the system costs should be met by existing charge payers. The consultation will also consider whether charging can be extended to other users and/or redistributed among existing payers".
	Again, that was modest progress.
	Unfortunately, in March 2003, the Transport Minister in another place, Mr David Jamieson, took the opportunity to make what was, in one sense, quite a good move by announcing the freezing of light dues rates for 2003–04. He also commented on the Government's consultation and said that what had emerged had been "inconclusive" and that "no consensus" had emerged on a way forward. The Minister then announced that further work would be carried out.
	Where have we got to? What is the answer? Some weeks ago, I had the good fortune to ask the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, what the Government's policy was. With his usual good manners and deftness, he dodged the question, so I look forward to hearing this evening where we have got to. Some interesting points have been brought up, particularly the Irish issue, which is important. The Transport Select Committee in another place noted that 70 per cent of the expenditure of the Commissioners of Irish Lights related to the provision of aids to navigation in the Republic of Ireland. It is clear that the Government of this country funds a large amount of the costs incurred by the Irish Republic. Luckily, the Government have realised that, and they have got on to it. They have said:
	"The UK is seeking to renegotiate the current agreement to require Ireland to meet the full costs of their aids to navigation. Discussions with FCO and Irish Government are ongoing, but progress is slow".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/03; col. 171W.]
	We know that the Foreign Office has many things on its plate. I suspect that the discussion of light dues is not terribly high on the Foreign Secretary's agenda, but we can live in hope.
	The Transport Select Committee said that light dues were inconsistent with those in other European countries and distorted competition. It also said that the Government should reconsider the entire concept of light dues. It supported the Government's aim to end the subsidy to the Republic of Ireland. Do the Government agree with the Select Committee's report? It would be interesting to hear.
	I did a little background research. As far as I can see, the European countries that are wholly funded by the levy are Belgium, Greece, Ireland and the United Kingdom; those funded by a mixture are Finland, Norway and Sweden; and those funded by the exchequer are Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. There is no consistent policy in Europe.
	I cannot leave the subject without saying that we have all received many briefings on the subject, particularly from the Chamber of Shipping, as well as suggestions on how more people should contribute. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, pointed out, the difficulty is that they all have said that everyone should contribute. But they have not pointed to a successful way in which that could be raised and how those who have a yacht could be forced to pay.
	I should love to declare an interest that I own a yacht. Sadly, I think that a 21-foot boat with an outboard motor probably counts only as a boat rather than as a yacht. I am rather disappointed to acknowledge that to noble Lords. But I am ever hopeful that one day, with one more lottery ticket, I may be able to move up to something large enough to call itself a yacht. I am not entirely sure how large that would be.
	It is quite difficult to extend light dues to a great number of other sectors because I do not believe that there is a satisfactory way in which to collect the money. We look forward to the Minister's response and some clearer understanding of what the Government's policy is on this subject.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, perhaps I may start by expressing the deep sense of honour and privilege that I feel on being made a Member of this House. I am well aware of the fact that I have joined a Chamber in which there is an exceptional body of knowledge and a remarkable gathering of experience. I doubt that there is an equivalent in any legislature anywhere that can match it. That makes the honour, of course, both special and particularly daunting.
	So it is with some trepidation that I contemplate what I shall be able to add to the sum of knowledge that is concentrated here. All that I can do is to try my best both for this House and for the Labour Government, which I have the opportunity to serve. I thank noble Lords of all parties, and the Cross-Benchers, who have been very welcoming and very helpful. I certainly thank those who have offered their help and advice. I shall presume on those kind offers; I shall need all the help and advice that I can get, especially if I am to try to remain non-controversial.
	The very first kindness that I was given was in the first letter that I received. It was from the House of Lords Yacht Club, which I took to be some kind of induction into this debate. My thanks for all of that. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has promised me some late-night debates on this subject. I look forward to them with great enthusiasm. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has already made reference to owning some type of vessel. I must tell the House that I do not think that I own anything more than 21 feet long.
	I turn now to the intriguing discussion that we are having today on the safety of our wonderful coastline—10,500 miles of it in the United Kingdom alone—and to the shipping industries and the leisure users mentioned in this debate. I thank noble Lords for their expert consideration of the issues. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for securing the debate. I am glad to feel that I am contributing to a debate that has lasted approximately 170 years. It is always nice to know that there is some durability in a subject.
	I welcome the opportunity to respond to the interesting comments that have been made. As has been mentioned, the Government undertook a review of light dues in 2002. We approached all classes of users and sought views on restructuring the charge. We made it clear right from that point that we were committed to retaining the charge, but that we would be happy to review the effects on various classes of users. Safety at sea is the overriding issue of importance to us. Lights contribute to the safe passage of vessels and the safety of mariners, while also safeguarding the environment and cargoes from risk of hazard.
	I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, talk about what has happened in France—an issue that I have promised to study. I shall also draw on the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, and his very perceptive comments that the critical issues and the critical values in all of this are about life saving and the safety of people. I do not think that I have ever had the chance to discuss such a matter with a lighthouse keeper. Since there are so few left and their numbers are declining, it may be the last occasion on which I shall have a chance to do so. But the core of it surely was right.
	The response received during the government review has been disappointing. There were 158 responses. The split was roughly 25 from merchant shipping, 14 from fishing vessels and 63 from pleasure craft. The remaining 56 represented the port authorities, the cargo industry and individual responses. A number of the responses came from organisations representing a number of users, such as the Royal Yachting Association, the Chamber of Shipping and the National Federation of Fisheries Organisations. There was little by way of consensus in how the costs should be split. Well, that is not strictly true. There was general agreement on all sides that someone else should meet the costs. The pleasure users were generally convinced that the aids to navigation were mostly designed to meet commercial needs. The commercial users felt that their ships were better equipped and relied much less on traditional aids to navigation—lighthouses, buoys and beacons. The pleasure users did not accept that view. Overall, while we were grateful for the significant contributions to the debate, we had to conclude that the exercise has not shown a new approach to the structure of the charge.
	There was another area of agreement. Many people would like the Exchequer to meet the costs. We do not accept that view. We are committed to a cost recovery system. The charge distributes the costs among users. It is cost-effective to collect, with a running cost of 1.5 per cent of the amounts collected. I agree with my noble friend, Lord Mackenzie of Culkein, that it is unlikely to distort competition. Taxation is familiar in this form in roughly a third of the major coastal states. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has made a very important point about the possible distinctiveness of tourism. That is likely to be considered in the review and I shall certainly be asking that question.
	However, we see no justification for the Exchequer taking on the costs. Despite frequent claims that elsewhere in Europe aids to navigation are state-aided, the UK is far from unique in operating such a system. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is right on the distribution of countries. In Europe alone, Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland and Spain also fund aids to navigation by a levy on shipping, and Sweden and Finland raise some of the costs in this way. Many member states make other charges, such as piloting charges that are higher in European ports, balancing out the light dues costs of the United Kingdom. In any case, we are different from many other EU states—we are an island whose coastlines border many of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, is quite right to say that in many of those cases there are also local taxes which are very much harder to detect.
	I have been asked to comment on where we are. I shall do my best. I am hopeful that, in due course, we will learn where the Opposition are, as a reciprocal arrangement to understand their policies. In March 2003, the Minister for Shipping announced that the department would undertake a study of the economic effect of light dues. The terms of reference were discussed with users. The study is being guided by a steering committee that includes representatives from all classes of user. The consultants have used the response to the department's review in developing their proposals. As I have stated, the report will be published following completion of the study, expected at the end of January. It will need careful consideration. That means it will probably be too late for any recommendations to be put in place in time for the new financial year. But we will make an initial announcement in March when the light dues rates for 2004–05 are announced. We aim to establish charges in discussion with the industry that can be sustained over significant periods—at least three years. We will also publish the responses to the earlier review on the DfT website, with copies available in the Libraries of the House.
	Good progress is being made on the programme of work also announced at that time. A new collection system will come into operation in April 2004. This will provide an electronic method of collecting light dues, permitting direct payment and removing the paperwork. It is expected to reduce costs and to open up the possibility of greater variations in the charging system. The review of the future requirements of aids to navigation will get under way once the conclusions of the economic study are known and fully evaluated so that they can be taken into account at that time. We remain fully committed to renegotiating the current arrangements with Ireland to meet the full costs of its aids to navigation and we shall work closely with the FCO and the Irish Government to achieve this objective. Work is proceeding.
	We accept that the current charging system may not be ideal since many users pay nothing. But as has been pointed out in the debate, reductions in the rates have been made during the past 10 years. The last increase was made in 1993 and reductions were made in 1997 and 2002. We shall continue to look at the charging structure and the economic study.
	I do not wish to pre-empt any part of that study, but changes must be cost-effective to operate. It is for that reason we feel that, although it is not an impossibility, the idea of making a significant change in relation to leisure and pleasure craft is extremely unlikely. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley pointed out, it is more than likely that the overall costs of trying to implement such charges would far exceed any of the benefits. Collecting the money would be a hugely complex exercise. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, made essentially the same point.
	It is quite easy to criticise any charging scheme. Any replacement of the present structure must be cost-effective and efficient if it is not to make matters more difficult. The light dues system has its advantages and has broadly worked in its current form for 150 years. It is cost-effective to collect and it funds one of the best navigation aid systems and services in the world.
	Of course there are disparities in payments, and I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, to comment on them. However, the system covers the whole of the United Kingdom and Ireland and it is important that the service overall is integrated. I would also point out that the reserve is kept for various purposes, such as for pensions, variations in income and to meet statutory requirements in relation to activities such as the surveying and marking of wrecks. I do not suggest that the reserve could not be reduced. That is a possibility, but it must be retained to meet essential developments such as new ships, depot redevelopment and other activities which are key to the safety features which I described in my opening comments.
	We shall approach change with caution and I hope that I have indicated that there is every intention to ensure that we proceed rapidly and achieve the changes necessary.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and on behalf of the whole House, I very much want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, on an exceptional maiden speech.
	As I said in my opening remarks, unfortunately the rules of the House, as laid down in the Companion, do not allow me to comment on the content of the noble Lord's speech in relation to what I had to say. Be that as it may, he displayed immediately all the considerable attributes that he brought to his job as general secretary of the Labour Party. I note, having done some research, that he is also still a visiting Fellow of Economics at Cambridge. It is his good fortune that he is slightly younger than me. I struggled for one year—my first year at Cambridge—trying to learn economics under the tutelage of the late Lord Bower. I sympathised with him thereafter, as he had a hard, uphill struggle. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, did well that he is not quite of my age and did not have to do the same thing.
	I, and the whole House, congratulate the noble Lord on an exceptional maiden speech on quite an erudite subject, and one that will certainly come up again. We thank him most sincerely.

House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before ten o'clock.